PARMESHWAR KUMAR Vs. LAHTAN CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) from the decision of the Election Tribunal, Purnea, whereby the election of the appellant to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Supaul Constituency in the District of Saharsa has been declared void, The appellant in the appeal is Sri Parmeshwar Kumar, who was the respondent in the Election petition before the Election Tribunal and for the purposes of avoiding confusion he will be hereinafter referred to as respondent in this judgment. The respondent in this appeal is Sri Lahtan Chaudhary, who was the petitioner before the said Tribunal and for the reasons just mentioned, he will be referred to as petitioner in this judgment.

(2.) The petitioner was selected by the Congress Party to contest the last Assembly -Election from the Supaul Constituency and he filed three nomination papers before the District Magistrate of Saharsa, who was the Returning Officer o the Constituency. The nomination papers were filed personally by the petitioner on 28-1-1957. The last date for filing the nomination papers was the 29th January. The respondent as well as two more candidates also filed their nomination papers before the said Returning Officer who fixed 1-2-1957, at 11 A.M. for scrutiny of nominations. The petitioner had filed three nomination papers, one signed by one Sukhdeo Singh as the proposer and the other two signed by one Chandra Kishor Pathak as the proposer of the petitioner. The nomination papers were respectively marked A/1, A/2 and A/3 by the Returning Officer. Neither the petitioner nor anybody else on behalf of the petitioner was present before the Returning Officer at the appointed time and date at the time of scrutiny of nominations. Objections were raised by or on behalf of the respondent that the nomination papers filed by the petitioner did not bear any genuine signature of the respective proposers. The Returning Officer accepted the ex parte objection raised on behalf of the respondent to the nomination papers of the petitioner and rejected all of them as invalid on the ground that the signatures of the proposers on the nomination papers, were not genuine. The petitioner and his proposers reached Saharsa on the same date, i.e. 1-2-1957, after the petitioner's nominations had been rejected. The petitioner filed a petition before the Returning Officer asking him to revise) or review his order rejecting his nominations alleging that the said rejection had been obtained by fraudulent means and by misre-presenting to the Returning Officer that they did not bear the signatures of the proposers. Two affidavits also were filed on the same date sworn by the two proposers to the effect that the nominations bore their genuine signatures as proposers. The Returning Officer felt powerless to hold any further enquiry in the matter as he had no power either to revise or review his own order rejecting the nominations. The result was that the election was held without the petitioner being in the field to contest the same. The other two candidates were defeat" ed and the respondent was declared elected. A petition was thereafter presented by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Act for a declaration mat the election of the respondent was void inasmuch as the nomination of the petitioner had been improperly rejected. The petitioner's further case was that no objection had been taken by anybody in respect of the signature of the proposer on the nomination paper marked A/3 by the Returning Officer and on that additional ground it was stated that the rejection of that nomination paper was improper over and above the general ground that all the three nomination papers bore the genuine signatures 01 the proposers.

(3.) The contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the nominations had not been improperly rejected, firstly because they did not bear the genuine signatures of the proposers and, secondly, because on the materials available before the Returning Officer he had no alternative but to reject them and ii that view of the matter it could not be held that the nominations had been improperly rejected by him. It was also stated on behalf of the respondent that objection had been raised on his behalf with regard to the signature of the proposer on the nomination paper marked A/3 also. A point was also raised before the Tribunal that the nomination papers of the petitioner were not filled in by the proper persons who were required to fill up their respective portions of the nomination papers.