HARNAM SINGH Vs. TIRATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY two questions arise for determination by us in this appeal under Section 116 -A. Representation of the People Act, 1951: (1) whether the amendment of written statement was wrongly disallowed by the learned Tribunal and should now be allowed by us on appeal, and (2) whether the rejection of the nomination -papers in question is valid.

(2.) TO state briefly the facts relevant at this stage, it may be recalled that general elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held in 1962. On 27th January, 1962, Shri Gurdial Singh Mazhbi stated to be a member of a Scheduled Caste was also desirous of contesting the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Mehal Kalan constituency, the (other contestants being Shri Jagjit Singh, Shri Mohinder Singh, Shri Tirath Singh (Respondent in this Court) and Shri Harnam Singh Appellant who was successful in the election defeating Shri Jagjit Singh, Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri Tirath Singh. The nomination -papers filed by Shri Gurdial Singh were in Form 2(B) prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 (hereinafter, called the Rules) but the particular caste or tribe of which he is a member was not specified therein. It is common ground that he had paid a sum of Rs. 125 by way of deposit as required by Section 34 of the Representation of People Act, 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). At the time of scrutiny, the Returning Officer after examining Gurdial Singh's nomination -papers formed the opinion that the omission to mention his specific caste in the declaration by the candidate was a material omission amounting to a defect of a substantial character since it was not possible to verify -that he actually belonged to one of the castes scheduled in the Scheduled Caste Order and was thus entitled to the concession in the deposit as contemplated by Section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The certificate and the affidavit which were also noticed by the Returning Officer were not considered to be helpful and while rejecting the nomination -papers, he dealt with these documents in the following words:

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties gave rise to five issues, which were settled oh 21st July, 1962. On 8th September, 1962, the date fixed for the Petitioner's evidence. Shri Harham Singh presented an application under Section 90 of the Act read with Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, and under the inherent powers of the Tribunal, stating that he had failed to submit in his written statement, that Gurdial Singh whose nomination -papers had validly been rejected by the Returning Officer, Barnala on 29th January, 1962, had not been validly proposed and nominated His proposer Shri Gurdev Singh, son of Dulla Singh voter No. 441 of Chak Bhai Ka Mahal Kalan, constituency was uneducated and completely illiterate, not able even to read and write Punjabi. As this name occurred twice in the same list of voters, taking advantage of this discrepancy, Gurdial Singh had got hold of some unknown person to propose his name. This plea having inadvertently been omitted from the written statement, amendment with the object of taking this additional plea was sought. This petition was resisted and it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner "that no case for amendment of the written statement at such late stage had been made out, and that the application for amendment had been filed merely for delaying the disposal of the election petition. Omission to raise this ground before the Returning Officer was also pleaded to operate as an estoppel. The prayer for amendment was disallowed by the learned Tribunal on 30th November, 1962 in a consolidated order dealing with two applications for amendment, the one dated 8th September, 1962 and the other dated 17th September, 1962. The other application, it may be observed, does not concern us at this stage.