BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. DASRATH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sections 80, 80-A and 80(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 the petitioner has questioned the election of Dasrath Kumar Singh who was elected from 324-Hussainabad Assembly Constituency in 1990 General Election. As many as many as 30 candidates had filed their nomination paper including the petitioner and the respondents. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of Ashok Kumar Singh, Laxman Ram and Rabindra Singh at the time of scrutiny. After scrutiny nomination papers of 42 candidates were found valid. Out of 42 candidates, 17 candidates withdraw from the context. 25 candidates remained in the field as the contesting candidates including the election petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioner was not official candidate of Janata Dal whereas first respondent was official candidate of B.J.P. The petitioner has been polled 16047 votes whereas returned candidates had bagged 16210 votes. The first respondent was declared elected by very narrow margin. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the election of the first respondent, Dasrath Singh is void for the following reasons:

(2.) The petitioner has stated that the nomination paper of Ashok Kumar Singh was rejected on the ground that his name in the voter list did not tally the name in the nomination paper (Abhipramanit Prati Mai Ankit Nam Mai Antar Kai Falswaroop Aswakrit). It has been stated that at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper the candidate of Ashok Kumar Singh was himself present. No body raised objection about the identity of Ashok Kumar Singh. The serial number and the part number were correctly filled up in the nomination paper. However, there was a slight discrepancy in the name of, Ashok Kumar Singh in the voter list i.e. in the voter list the name of Ashok Kumar Singh has been written as Ashok Singh whereas in the nomination paper it was written as Ashok Kumar Singh. Similarly, the father's name of Ashok Kumar Singh in the voter list was mentioned as Sunder Singh whereas in the nomination paper the name was fulled as Sunder Deo Singh. It is contended that the nomination of Ashok Kumar Singh was improperly rejected in breach of Section 36(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which Laid down that nomination paper can be rejected only on the ground that defects is of substantial character. The defect notes given by Returning Officer can hardly be characterised a defect much less defect of substantial character. It is asserted that the reason given by the Returning officer for rejecting the nomination paper is no reason in the eye of law and giving reason for rejecting nomination paper is mandatory requirement of law which was not applied by the Returning Officer.

(3.) As stated earlier, nomination paper of Rabindra Singh was rejected on the ground that the said candidate was a minor and hence not qualified to be chosen for legislature of a State. The Returning Officer had rejected his nomination paper despite the fact that nomination paper contained declaration that he had attained the age of 25 years. According to Article 137-B of the Constitution of India the person who is not less than 25 years of age on the date of election is qualified to be elected and hence rejection of nomination paper on the face of it arbitrary and improper. Rabindra Singh was present at the time of scrutiny and no body raised objection about his age at the time of scrutiny. It is contended that the reason assigned by the Returning Officer about the rejection of nomination paper of Rabindra Singh was absolutely warranted. Nomination paper of a candidate can not be rejected on the basis of age mentioned in the voter list.