BALJI Vs. MURARKA RADHEYSHYAM RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an election appeal under Sec. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act (No. 43) of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ).

(2.) THE appellant Shri Balji was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Jhunjhunu Parliamentary Constituency at the general election held in January, 1962. THE respondent Shri Murarka Radheyshyam Ramkumar was declared successful at this election. THEre were more than a dozen other candidates at the election in question, but we are not concerned with them. THE appellant's nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer Shri V. I. Rajagopal P. W. 2 (Collector, Jhunjhunu) at the time of the scrutiny which was held on the 22nd January, 1962. A copy of the order of rejection of the nomination paper is Ex. 13. It shows that neither the candidate Shri Balji nor his proposer Abdul Gani nor any election agent or representative on his behalf was present at the time of the scrutiny. THE reason for the rejection was stated to be that the proposer Abdul Gani had given his electoral roll number as 105, Ward No. 13 (Nawalgarh) ; but the name of Atmaram son of Ramgopal appeared in the relevant Electoral roll against the said particular and wrong particulars given by the proposer constituted a defect of a substantial nature. THE order also shows that all present at the time of the scrutiny were given full opportunity to examine the nomination form before the final decision was given. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an election petition to the Election Commission of India, New Delhi, on the 13th April, 1962, which was referred for disposal to Shri Roop Singh Rathore, District Judge, Jhunjhunu as the Election Tribunal.

(3.) NOW it is in this setting that we have to see whether the appellant could have any legitimate grievance that he had been misled by the time for scrutiny mentioned in his receipt Ex. 2 dated the 19th January, 1962. Evidence has been Jed on behalf of the respondent to show that this notice had been read out to the appellant by the respondent's witness Sitaram Parasrampuria about the 15th or 16th January, 1962, when he had gone to the office of the Collector, Jhunjhunu to collect certain forms etc. for the respondent. Even if we were to reject this evidence as untrue, we find it impossible to hold that the appellant was not aware of this notice. Indeed we must hold that he was very much aware of it because otherwise one could hardly know how the programme of the entire election stood for this constituency for which the appellant was a candidate and how for example the nomination papers were to be obtained and when and during which hours they were required to be presented and so on and so forth. It was clearly mentioned in this notice that the nomination papers would be taken up for scrutiny at 11 A. M. on the 22nd January, 1962, at the Collectorate, Jhunjhunu. We, therefore, find it hard for us to accept that the appellant was or could be really prejudiced by anything mentioned in the receipt. As we look at the matter, if the respondent had himself read the receipt or had it read out to him, he would have atonce seen that there was a conflict in the time table so far as the scrutiny of the nomination papers was concerned, which is indeed a very vital step in the whole process of election, and we should have expected him to further inquire into the matter. And if he had done so, he would have at once come to know how the position correctly stood.