1978 (2) TMI 229 - HC - Indian Laws

Election petition dismissed, nomination papers rejected, polling stations upheld, voter list final, no impact on result

The court dismissed the election petition, upholding the proper rejection of the nomination papers, lawful inclusion and exclusion of polling stations, ... Validity of nomination under the prescribed form and requirement of electoral roll particulars - mandatory production of certified copy of electoral roll entries where candidate is elector of a different constituency - power of Returning Officer to reject nomination for non-compliance with section 33 - substantial compliance doctrine in relation to nomination formalities - finality of Delimitation Commission orders and correction under section 11 of the Delimitation Act - authority to amend list of polling stations and corrigenda under section 25 and administrative powers - effect of improper inclusion or exclusion of polling stations on result under section 100(1)(d)Mandatory production of certified copy of electoral roll entries where candidate is elector of a different constituency - power of Returning Officer to reject nomination for non-compliance with section 33 - substantial compliance doctrine in relation to nomination formalities - Validity of the rejection of Shri Devinder Kumar's nomination papers by the Returning Officer - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the nomination papers showed an electoral-roll entry for a different constituency and that no certified copy of the relevant electoral-roll entries was filed with the nomination papers or produced at scrutiny as required by the statutory provision corresponding to S. 33(5). The Returning Officer's uncontradicted record that he waited till 3 P.M. and no certified copy was produced, together with the presumption in favour of official acts and the absence of satisfactory, convincing oral evidence to the contrary, established non-compliance with the mandatory requirement. The Court held that the particulars furnished did not amount to substantial compliance because they would have necessitated a laborious search and thereby misled other candidates; consequently the Returning Officer acted within the powers of S. 36(2)(b) to reject the nominations and rejection could not be treated as improper. [Paras 9, 14, 16, 22, 24]Rejection of the nomination papers was proper; issue decided against the petitioner.Finality of Delimitation Commission orders and correction under section 11 of the Delimitation Act - authority to amend list of polling stations and corrigenda under section 25 and administrative powers - effect of improper inclusion or exclusion of polling stations on result under section 100(1)(d) - Allegation of illegal inclusion of Nand Nagri and Mandoli and exclusion of specified polling stations after Delimitation Order No. 40 - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the Delimitation Commission order, subsequent corrections made by the Election Commission under its power to rectify inadvertent slips, and the lists and corrigenda of polling stations issued by the Returning Officer and Chief Electoral Officer. Evidence established that Mandoli and Nand Nagri were included within the notified extent of constituency No. 33 by the corrections and that the final list of polling stations (and its corrigendum) included or excluded the polling stations in question as per the administrative process under section 25. Clerkly errors in the initial tentative list were corrected by formal corrigenda; where polling station 15 (Jagjiwan Nagar) and certain voters of Jyoti Nagar were not part of constituency No. 33, the corrigendum deleting station 15 was proper. The Court held there was no unlawful inclusion of the 22 polling stations and that the deletions/corrections to polling-station lists were within the powers of the election authorities and did not amount to material non-compliance under section 100(1)(d). [Paras 30, 31, 34, 35, 36]Issue held against the petitioner; no improper inclusion or exclusion that vitiates the election was established.Finality of Delimitation Commission orders and correction under section 11 of the Delimitation Act - effect of improper inclusion or exclusion of polling stations on result under section 100(1)(d) - Whether the list of voters for a constituency is final and not open to objection before the High Court in an election petition - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the orders of the Delimitation Commission, once published, have statutory finality and cannot be called in question in any Court; corrections under section 11 are the statutory mechanism to rectify inadvertent slips. Further, the High Court's jurisdiction in an election petition is confined to the grounds enumerated in section 100 of the Act, and it cannot entertain collateral challenges to the exercise of powers under the Delimitation Act or purely to alleged violations of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, except insofar as they amount to non-compliance materially affecting the result as defined in section 100(1)(d). On these bases the Court held issue No. 3 in favour of the respondent. [Paras 28, 29, 36]List of voters and delimitation corrections are not open to collateral challenge in the election petition; issue held for the respondent.Final Conclusion: The election petition is dismissed. The Court upheld the Returning Officer's rejection of the rival nomination as lawful, found no material improper inclusion or exclusion of polling stations or voters that would vitiate the election, and concluded that the petitioner's challenges to delimitation and voter lists could not be sustained; petition dismissed with costs. Issues Involved:1. Improper rejection of the nomination papers of Shri Devinder Kumar.2. Illegal inclusion and exclusion of certain areas from constituency No. 33.3. Finality and objection to the list of voters for a constituency.4. Material effect on the election result due to improper reception or exclusion of votes.Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Improper Rejection of the Nomination Papers of Shri Devinder KumarThe petitioner argued that Shri Devinder Kumar's nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer without verifying that he was a voter at Serial No. 1021 Part 416-C of the East Delhi Parliamentary Constituency Electoral Roll. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers because Shri Devinder Kumar did not produce a copy of the electoral roll or a certified copy of the relevant entries at the time of scrutiny as required under Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court held that the provisions of Section 33(5) are mandatory and non-compliance with these provisions justified the rejection of the nomination papers. The court also found that Shri Devinder Kumar was not present at the time of scrutiny and did not point out the correct electoral roll number to the Returning Officer. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination papers was held to be proper.Issue No. 2: Illegal Inclusion and Exclusion of Certain Areas from Constituency No. 33The petitioner contended that the inclusion of 22 polling stations of Nand Nagri and Mandoli in constituency No. 33 and the exclusion of polling stations Nos. 15 and 26 were illegal. The court examined the notifications and found that village Mandoli and Nand Nagri were included in constituency No. 33 as per the Delimitation Commission's Order No. 40 and subsequent corrections made by the Election Commission. The court also found that polling station No. 15, Jagjiwan Nagar, was erroneously included in constituency No. 33 and was later deleted by a corrigendum notification. The court held that the corrections made in the list of polling stations were within the powers of the District Election Officer and did not violate any provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.Issue No. 3: Finality and Objection to the List of Voters for a ConstituencyThe court held that the list of voters for a constituency is final and not open to objection once it is published. The court found that the corrections made in the Delimitation Commission's orders were final and could not be called into question in any court. The court also held that any non-compliance with the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 1972, could not be a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.Issue No. 4: Material Effect on the Election Result Due to Improper Reception or Exclusion of VotesThe court held that there was no improper reception or refusal of any votes as the inclusion and exclusion of polling stations were done in accordance with the law. The court found that the voters of polling station No. 15, Jagjiwan Nagar, and the voters of Jyoti Nagar Colony were not electors of constituency No. 33 and had no right to vote in that constituency. Therefore, the issue of whether the result of the election was materially affected did not arise for determination.Relief:The election petition was dismissed with costs, and counsel fee was set at Rs. 1,000.Conclusion:The court dismissed the election petition, holding that the rejection of Shri Devinder Kumar's nomination papers was proper, the inclusion and exclusion of polling stations were lawful, the list of voters was final and not open to objection, and there was no material effect on the election result due to improper reception or exclusion of votes.