TEJARAM GAHLOT Vs. PUKHRAJ KALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Pukhraj Kalani, respondent No. 1. was elected from the Sojat Constituency in the general elections of 1972 to the Rajasthan State Assembly. His election had been challenged by the petitioner on certain grounds including the charge of a corrupt practice. But by his application dated 24-7-1972 the petitioner abandoned his attack on the ground of corrupt practice and confined his petition to the improper rejection of the nomination paper of the respondent Mr. Narain respondent No. 2, The circumstances attending the submission. rejection and acceptance of Mr. Narain's nomination paper briefly stated are these: He presented his nomination paper dated 8-2-1972 (Document No. 1 ). On 9-2-1972 the Returning Officer (respondent No. 4) scrutinised it and made the endorsements which may be translated verbatim in the interest of exactitude.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order rejecting the nomination paper of Shri Narain and because on the returning Officer's own showing Shri Narain's nomination paper was improperly rejected the election of Shri Pukhraj Kalani should be set aside under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act. Respondent Pukhraj Kalani contests the position. He says that because the nomination paper of Shri Narain was eventually accepted the case is not attracted by Section 100 (1) (c) of the representation of the People Act. If the nomination paper was improperly accepted then unless it is averred and it has not been so averred that it materially affected the results of the election Section 100 (1) (d) (i) is not attracted and the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground. The time for scrutiny was between 11 a. m. and 3 p. m. and before the final list under Section 36 (8) was published the nomination paper of Shri Narain was duly accepted. The case is not one of review but of correction of a mistake. One important fact, which is not in dispute, might also be mentioned i. e, Shri Narain eventually withdrew from the election contest.

(3.) THE crux of the controversy is that after having imporperly rejected the nomination paper of Shri Narain had the Returning Officer any jurisdiction to correct the error. If he had none, then the subsequent order does not exist in law being a nullity and the rejection being improper it will have to be examined whether the case is covered by Section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the people Act thereby making the elec-tion of Shri Pukhraj Kalani void.