http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6521 of 2004

PETITIONER: Anil Baluni                                                      

RESPONDENT: Surendra Singh Negi                                      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/07/2005

BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti,G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

G.P. Mathur, J.

1.      This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the  People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) has been  preferred by a candidate against the judgment and order dated  3.9.2004 of the High Court of Uttaranchal by which the election  petition filed by him challenging the election of the respondent  Surendra Singh Negi was dismissed. 2.      The Election Commission of India issued a notification calling  upon the electors of Uttaranchal to elect members of Uttaranchal  Vidhan Sabha including those from 29 Kotdwar Legislative Assembly  Constituency.  According to the notification the schedule of the  election was as under: - i)      Last date for filing of nomination paper        23.1.2002 ii)     Date of Scrutiny of nomination paper            24.1.2002 iii)    Date for withdrawal of nomination               28.1.2002 iv)     Date of poll, if any                                    14.2.2002 v)      Date for counting of votes and Declaration of result                           24.2.2002 The appellant filed four sets of nomination papers, which were  rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that Forms ’A’ and  ’B’ were submitted by the appellant at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002, i.e.,  after the time fixed for filing of the nomination papers.  On account of  rejection of his nomination papers, the appellant could not contest the  election and the respondent Surendra Singh Negi was declared to have  been elected from the 29 Kotdwar Constituency. 3.      The appellant then filed an Election Petition under Sections 80  and 81 of the Act challenging the election of the respondent Surendra  Singh Negi to the Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly from 29 Kotdwar  Legislative Assembly Constituency of District Pauri Garhwal.  The  election petition was filed on the grounds inter alia that the appellant  was official candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party (for short ’BJP’) and  as the decision in that regard had been taken by the high command of  the party on 17.1.2002, he was handed over duly filled in Forms ’A’  and ’B’ as prescribed by the Election Symbols (Reservation and  Allotment) Order, 1968 (for short ’Symbols Order’).  Form ’A’ was  issued by Shri Jana Krishnamurti, National President of BJP  authorizing Shri Puran Chandra Sharma, the President of Uttaranchal  State BJP to intimate the name of the candidate to be set up by the  Party.  Form ’B’ was issued by Shri Puran Chand Sharma and was  addressed to the Returning Officer of 29 Kotdwar Assembly  Constituency notifying the appellant to be the official candidate of the  Party from the aforesaid Constituency in the said election.  The  appellant in person filed four sets of nomination papers on 22.1.2002  as a candidate of BJP along with aforementioned Forms ’A’ and ’B’  issued under the Symbols Order before the Returning Officer of 29

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Kotdwar Assembly Constituency.  The nomination papers were duly  filled up and fully complied with all the requirements and formalities  prescribed by Section 33 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.   Similarly Forms ’A’ and ’B’, which had been filed along with the  nomination papers were duly filled up and contained the requisite  signatures and thus complied with all the requirements of law.  The  Returning Officer commenced the scrutiny of the nomination papers  in his office at about 11.30 A.M. on 24.1.2002 where the appellant  along with his proposer Shri Mohan Singh was present.  The  appellant’s nomination papers, which had been placed at serial  numbers 18 to 21, were taken up for scrutiny at about 11.45 A.M.   The Returning Officer, after careful scrutiny of the nomination papers,  found them to be valid and after stating orally that the same were  valid he passed orders in Hindi on all the nomination papers to the  effect "after scrutiny found valid".  After some time the appellant left  the office of the Returning Officer and proceeded to his Constituency,  which is approximately 100 kilometers from Pauri Garhwal where the  scrutiny had been done.  While on way to Kotdwar the appellant  contacted his election office on phone and came to know that  subsequent to his leaving the office of the Returning Officer, his  nomination papers had been rejected.  The appellant immediately  returned but by the time he reached the office of the Returning  Officer, it had been closed.  The appellant then approached the  Observer appointed by the Election Commission on 24.1.2002 and  apprised him of the illegal and improper rejection of his nomination  papers.  He also sent written complaints to the Chief Election  Commissioner and other authorities.  It was specifically pleaded that  the Returning had made interpolations by adding the Hindi word "Aa"  before the word "vaidh".  Subsequently on 25.1.2002 the appellant  received a communication dated 24.1.2002 from the Returning Officer  intimating him that his nomination papers, which had been filed on  22.1.2002 had been rejected on the ground that Forms ’A’ and ’B’  were filed at 4.10 P.M. on 23.1.2002.  Certain other pleas were also  taken which are not very relevant for the decision of the appeal. 4.      The respondent Surendra Singh Negi contested the election  petition by filing a written statement on the ground inter alia that the  appellant had filed his nomination papers before the Returning Officer  on 22.1.2002 but Forms ’A’ and ’B’ issued under the Symbols Order  were not submitted on the said date.  He was informed by his party  workers and associates that the appellant had not submitted Forms ’A’  and ’B’ till 3.00 P.M. on 23.1.2002 and had submitted the same at  4.10 P.M. on the said date before the Assistant Returning Officer.   Since Forms ’A’ and ’B’ were not submitted by the appellant till 3.00  P.M. on 23.1.2002 his nomination papers were rejected by the  Returning Officer.  Subsequently, the appellant tried to pressurize the  Returning Officer for declaring the nomination papers submitted by  him as valid.  It was further pleaded that the respondent had polled  more than double number of votes than those secured by Shri  Bhuvnesh Khakral, who was a BJP supported candidate. 5.      On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed several  issues and issue Nos. 1 and 3, which are the principal issues, read as  under: - "(1)    Whether the nomination paper of the petitioner  was improperly rejected as alleged by the  petitioner?  If so, its effect? (3)     Whether any manipulation in the nomination paper  of the petitioner has been made as alleged?  If so,  its effect?"

After appraisal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the  parties the High Court held that no interpolation had been done in the  appellant’s nomination papers and consequently there was no merit in  the case set up by him.  It was further held that as the Forms ’A’ and  ’B’ of the Symbols Order had been submitted by the appellant at 4.10  P.M. on 23.1.2002, which was beyond the time prescribed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

relevant statutory provisions and the order of the Election  Commission, the same were rightly rejected.  The election petition  was accordingly dismissed. 6.      We have heard Shri Subodh Markandey, learned Senior  Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.A. Mohta, learned Senior  Advocate for the contesting respondent.  Before examining the  contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it will be  convenient to set out the relevant statutory provisions.  Para 13 of the  Symbols Order reads as under: - "13.    When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by  a political party. \026 For the purpose of an election from  any parliamentary or assembly constituency to which this  Order applies, a candidate shall be deemed to be set up  by a political party in any such parliamentary or  assembly constituency, if and only if \026  (a)     the candidate has made the prescribed declaration  to this effect in his nomination paper; (b)     a notice by the political party in writing, in Form  B, to that effect has, not later than 3 P.M. on the  last date of making nominations, been delivered to  the Returning Officer of the constituency; (c)     the said notice in Form B is signed by the  President, the Secretary or any other office-bearer  of the party, and the President, Secretary or such  other office-bearer sending the notice has been  authorized by the party to send the notice; (d)     the name and specimen signature of such  authorized person are communicated by the party,  in Form A, to the Returning Officer of the  constituency, and to the Chief Electoral Officer of  the State or Union Territory concerned, not later  than 3 p.m. on the last date for making  nominations; and (e)     Forms A and B are signed, in ink only, by the said  office-bearer or person authorized by the party:         Provided that no facsimile signature or signature  by means of rubber stamp etc. of any such office-bearer  or authorized person shall be accepted and no form  transmitted by fax shall be accepted."

7.      The evidence adduced by the appellant may be noticed in brief.   The appellant Anil Kumar Baluni examined himself as PW-1 and  deposed that he was declared the official candidate of Bhartiya Janata  Party on 17.1.2002 and had been given Forms ’A’ and ’B’ by the  State President of the Party Shri Puran Chandra Sharma on 19.1.2002.   Thereafter, he had filed his nomination papers accompanied with  Forms ’A’ and ’B’ at 2.57 P.M. on 22.1.2002 in the Office of the  Collector at Pauri Garhwal.  The scrutiny of the nomination papers  commenced at 11.30 A.M. on 24.1.2002 and after scrutiny the  Returning Officer had orally announced that all the four nomination  papers filed by him were valid and had also made an endorsement  thereon that the same were valid.  After some time he left the office  for his constituency, which is about 100 kilometers from there.  While  on the way he rang up his election office in Kotdwar and then came to  know that his nomination papers had been declared as invalid.  He  immediately returned but by the time he reached the office of  Returning Officer, the same had been closed.  He then met the  Observer in the Circuit House to whom he gave a written complaint  and also gave a written complaint to the Assistant Returning Officer.   PW-2 Mohan Singh Rawat, who was election agent of the appellant  Anil Kumar Baluni, has corroborated the version of the appellant and  has deposed that Forms ’A’ and ’B’ had been filed along with the  nomination papers of the appellant on 22.1.2002.  He has further  deposed that after scrutiny the Returning Officer had orally  announced that the same were valid and had made an endorsement to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

that effect with his own hand.  After some time they had left the office  for going to Kotdwar.  PW-3 M.L. Sharma, Deputy Government  Examiner in the Forensic Science Laboratory of Government of India  at Shimla has proved his report.  The report has considerable bearing  in the case and we will advert to it later on. 8.      The respondent examined Anil Kumar Yadav, who was Deputy  Collector, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and had performed the  duties of Returning Officer of Kotdwar Assembly Constituency.  He  has deposed that the appellant had filed four nomination papers on  22.1.2002, but Forms ’A’ and ’B’ had not been filed along with them  on that day.  The Forms ’A’ and ’B’ were filed by the appellant at  4.10 P.M. on 23.1.2002 on which he had mentioned the time and date  of filing.  He has further deposed that after scrutiny on 24.1.2002 he  passed the order whereby the nomination papers of the appellant were  declared to be invalid.  Another witness examined by the respondent  is DW-2 Bhagwati Prasad Ghildiyal, who was Revenue Ahalmad in  the Office of Deputy Collector, Kotdwar.  He deposed that the  appellant filed Forms ’A’ and ’B’ at 4.10 P.M. on 23.1.2002, which he  placed before the Returning Officer and had made an endorsement to  that effect.  DW-3 Mahendra Prasad, SDM Lensdown has deposed  that he had performed the duties of Returning Officer of Lensdown  Assembly Constituency.  On 23.1.2002 he had seen DW-1, Anil  Kumar Yadav in his office till about 5-5.30 P.M. and thereafter he had  left for Kotdwar as his wife was ill.  The respondent did not appear in  the witness box nor examined anyone else, who may have actually  witnessed the filing of the nomination papers by the appellant. 9.      There is no dispute that the appellant filed his nomination  papers on 22.1.2002.  In their depositions the appellant Anil Baluni  and also his election agent Mohan Singh Rawat have categorically  stated that Forms ’A’ and ’B’ were filed along with the nomination  papers on 22.1.2002.  The appellant has further deposed that he had  been declared as the official candidate by the party high command on  17.1.2002 and he had been given Forms ’A’ and ’B’ by the State  President Shri Puran Chandra Sharma on 19.1.2002.  This part of the  statement of the appellant has not been shaken in any manner in his  cross-examination.  Shri Mohta has  submitted that one Shri Bhuvnesh  Kharkwal had also submitted his nomination paper as a candidate of  BJP and this shows that there was a dispute as to who would be the  official candidate of the said party and, therefore, Forms ’A’ and ’B’  had not been given to the appellant till 22.1.2002.  It is not possible to  accept the contention as the specific statement of both PW-1 Anil  Baluni and PW-2 Mohan Singh Rawat is that the appellant had been  declared to be the official candidate of BJP on 17.1.2002 and Forms  ’A’ and ’B’ had been given to the appellant on 19.1.2002.  In fact  Form ’B’, which was issued in favour of the appellant also bears the  date 19.1.2002. The respondent has lead absolutely no evidence to  show that there was any doubt or dispute in the Party high command  regarding the candidature of the appellant on account of which the  Forms ’A’ and ’B’ could not have been given to the appellant on  19.1.2002 or till the time when he filed his nomination papers on  22.1.2002.  In such circumstances it does not appeal to reason that  though he had been declared as the official candidate of the BJP and  had been given Forms ’A’ and ’B’ on 19.1.2002 yet he would not file  the same along with his nomination papers on 22.1.2002 and would  choose to file the same subsequently on 23.1.2002, which was the last  date. 10.     Chapter V of Handbook for Returning Officers relates to  ’NOMINATIONS’.  Paragraphs 30.1 and 30.3 of said Chapter, which  are relevant for the purpose of present case, are being reproduced  below: - "Preparation of consolidated list of nominated  candidates 30.1    Immediately after 3.00 p.m. on the last date for  making nominations, or as soon as possible after you  have received all the nomination papers from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

specified Assistant Returning Officer(s) under para 28  above, you should prepare a consolidated list of all the  nomination papers, presented either before you or before  the specified Assistant Returning Officer(s).  Such  consolidated list of nominated candidates shall be  prepared in the following form: -

LIST OF NOMINATED CANDIDATES Name of the  State................................................................................... Name of Parliamentary/Assembly Constituency...................................................................... __________________________________________________________________ Sl.     Name of         Address of      Symbols Name of Political       Whether         Whet her main No      candidate       candidate       chosen in       party (National)/       Forms ’A’ an d       candidate or                         order of        State or registered)    ’B’ have been   substitute                         preference      by which the    received by 3.00        candidate of                         by the  candidate claims        p.m. on the last        the party (a s                         candidate       to have been set        date for making per party’s                                 up/Independent  nominations in  intimation in                                 candidate.      respect of the  Form B)                                         candidate ___________________________________________________________________________________    1    2       3       4                5                6                          7 ___________________________________________________________________________________

(i)     Candidates of recognized National and State  Political Parties (ii)    Candidates of registered political parties (other  than recognized National and State Political  Parties). (iii)   Other candidates (Independent candidates) Place............................... Date................................                            Returning Officer"

"30.3   Even if more than one candidate has claimed to be  set up by the same party, the names of all such candidates  should be included in the relevant category, i.e., category  (i) or (ii), as may be relevant.  However, suitable remarks  should be given in respect of each such candidate in  columns 6 and 7 of the above list, taking into  consideration the intimation received, if any, from the  party concerned in the prescribed Forms A and B by 3.00  P.M. on the last date for making nominations.  This will  facilitate your task at the time of scrutiny of nomination  papers of the concerned candidates." Paragraph 30.6 of the Handbook enjoins that the list has to be  prepared in triplicate and copies thereof are to be sent to Election  Commission, Chief Electoral Officer and Manager of the State  Government Press forthwith.  A certified copy of the consolidated list  of all the candidates of Kotdwar Assembly Constituency sent under  the signature of the Returning Officer Shri Anil Kumar Yadav to the  Election Commission of India in accordance with para 30.6 of the  Handbook, has been placed on record and has been marked as Ex.-5.   This list has been prepared strictly according to para 30.1 of the  Handbook and the name of the appellant Anil Baluni has been shown  under the heading "Candidates of Recognised National and State  Political Parties".  Against the name of the appellant in column 5  "Bhartiya Janata Party" is written and in column 6 "Yes" word has  been written.  Thus, in the list, which was sent to the Election  Commission on 23.1.2002 under the signature of the Returning

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Officer, it was clearly mentioned against the name of the appellant  that Forms ’A’ and ’B’ have been received by 3.00 P.M. on the last  date for making nomination regarding his candidature.  This  contemporaneous document, which had been prepared on 23.1.2002  itself fully establishes that the appellant had submitted Forms ’A’ and  ’B’ by the prescribed time. 11.     The specific case of the appellant is that at the time of the  scrutiny the Returning Officer had not only orally announced that his  nomination papers were valid but had also made an endorsement to  the same effect by his own hand and had signed the same.  But,  subsequently interpolation has been done by which Hindi word ’Aa’  was added to the word ’vaidh’ making it ’avaidh’ and it was further  written that the Forms ’A’ and ’B’ had been filed at 4.10 P.M. on  23.1.2002 before the Assistant.  Paragraphs 12.1 and 12.2 of Chapter  V of the Handbook read as under: - "Time and place of filing Nomination Papers 12.1    Nomination papers may be presented either before  you or before any of your Assistant Returning Officers  specified by you in the public notice, on any of the  notified days at the place or places specified in the notice  at any time between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. and not at  any other hours at any other place.  If a candidate or his  proposer seeks to present a nomination paper either  before 11.00 a.m. or after 3.00 p.m., you should not  accept the nomination paper saying that under the  provisions of the law neither the candidate has the right  to deliver, nor the Returning Officer has the right to  accept, a nomination paper outside the hours prescribed  for the purpose.  You may, however, point out that if he  so desires, he may present it within the prescribed hours  on the following day, provided it is one of the days  notified for presenting nomination papers. 12.2    It may so happen that some intending candidates  and/or their proposers are physically present in the  Returning Officer’s office at 3.00 p.m. for presenting  their nominations, but because of their large number and  because of the reason that nominations are to be received  one by one, it may not be possible for the Returning  Officer to physically receive all such nominations before  3.00 p.m.  In such cases, the Returning Officer shall  accept nominations of all intending candidates who are  present in the office of the Returning Officer at 3.00 p.m.  for filing nomination and treat these nomination papers to  have been delivered within the prescribed time under the  law.  For this purpose, if considered necessary, you may  close the entry to your office room exactly at 3.00 p.m.  and distribute slips to those present at that time."

Paragraph 29 of the Handbook clearly says that only such Forms ’A’  and ’B’, which are submitted by 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making  nomination, shall be accepted and not thereafter.  DW-1, Anil Kumar  Yadav has deposed that the appellant submitted Forms ’A’ and ’B’  before his Revenue Assistant Shri Bhagwati Prasad Ghildiyal at 4.10  p.m. on 23.1.2002.  He immediately came on the dias and after noting  the time and date of filing, put his signature thereon.  It is not possible  to accept this statement of the witness in view of paras 12.1, 12.2 and  29 of the Handbook.  The outer time limit for acceptance of  nomination papers and Forms ’A’ and ’B’ was 3.00 p.m. on 23.1.2002  and, therefore, the Returning Officer could not have received any such  Forms if the same were presented after 3.00 p.m.  If the appellant had  really presented the aforesaid Forms at 4.10 p.m., the Returning  Officer should have declined to receive the same.  The Handbook  does not lay down that the Returning Officer can physically receive  such documents even if they are presented after 3.00 p.m. on the last  date for making nominations and thereafter to mention the time and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

date of filing.  In fact paras 12.1 and 12.2 clearly state that the  Returning Officer should not accept any document after 3.00 p.m. and  if the number of candidates is large, the entry to the office room  should be closed exactly at 3.00 p.m.  The statement of the Returning  Officer that he accepted the Forms ’A’ and ’B’ submitted by the  appellant even though they were filed at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002 and  then noted the time and date of their filing is not worthy of credence  on account of the clear prohibition contained in the Handbook not to  receive any such document after 3.00 p.m.  This shows that Forms ’A’  and ’B’ had already been filed along with nomination papers before  the last date and time fixed for the purpose. 12.     The specific case of the appellant is that at the time of the  scrutiny the Returning Officer, after examination of the Forms, orally  announced that his nomination papers were valid and then made an  endorsement to the same effect and put his signature thereon.  The  appellant and also his witness PW-2 Mohan Singh Rawat have  deposed to that effect in their oral testimony.  According to the  appellant after he and his election agent had left the office of the  Returning Officer interpolation was done and ’valid’ was made  ’invalid’ by writing Hindi word ’Aa’ before the word ’vaidh’.  The  nomination papers were sent to the Laboratory of the Government  Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, of the Directorate of  Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.   According to the report of the Laboratory the Hindi word ’vaidh’ was  originally written and the word ’Aa’ appears to have been added  subsequently to the word ’vaidh’ in a different operation of writing  making it to be read as ’avaidh’ in the first line of all the  endorsements.  The report further says that apart from the letter ’Aa’  the further addition of the lines wherein it is written in Hindi that the  candidate has submitted Forms ’A’ and ’B’ on 23.1.2002 at 4.10 p.m.  before the Assistant was also subsequently written "for the manifest  reason that the shade and luster of ink of the letters of the  subsequently executed lines appear intense and different vis-‘-vis  those in the originally written first line and the signatures".  In the  final conclusion the report says that the endorsement in each case  along with the signature was originally written as ’vaidh’, which was  subsequently altered by addition of letter ’Aa’ to the original word  ’vaidh’ and also by addition of subsequent lines in different operation  of writing as are present in each of the endorsement marked Q1 to Q4  contained in part ’5’ of the nomination papers.  The report has been  signed by two persons, viz., Shri Amar Singh, Government Examiner  of Questioned Documents and P.W. 3 Shri M.L. Sharma, Deputy  Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who appeared as a  witness and proved the report.  Shri M.L. Sharma is also an  experienced person having put in 33 years of service.  The report is a  fairly long one and contains reasons for arriving at the conclusion that  the word ’Aa’ and the last two lines were written subsequently.   Nothing much was put to him in his cross-examination and there is  hardly any reason not to place reliance upon the said report.  A look at  the enlarged photographs, which form part of the report of the  laboratory, with the help of a magnifying glass shows that horizontal  line above the Hindi word ’Aa’ is not only separate but is at some  distance from the horizontal line, which has been placed over the  word ’vaidh’.  Had there been no interpolation, the horizontal line  over the word ’avaidh’ would have been drawn in one stroke.  The  manner in which the sentence "Forms ’A’ and ’B’ have been  submitted at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002 before the Assistant receiving the  nomination papers" has been written, creates a serious doubt that they  were originally not there but were written subsequently. 13.     As mentioned earlier the list of nominated candidates (Ex.-5)  was sent to the Election Commission and Chief Electoral Officer  under the signature of the Returning Officer on the same day, i.e., on  23.1.2002 in accordance with paragraph 30.1 of the Handbook,  which clearly mentioned that Forms ’A’ and ’B’ of the appellant had  been received by 3.00 p.m.  In his cross-examination Shri Anil Kumar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Yadav admitted that the entries made in Ex.-5 are correct.  However,  he has given a very strange explanation to get over the obvious  contradiction between this list (Ex.-5) and the endorsement made by  him on the nomination papers of the appellant that Forms ’A’ and ’B’  were submitted at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002.  He himself volunteered  towards the end of his cross-examination and stated that he handed  over blank forms after putting his signatures thereon to his Revenue  Assistant Bhagwati Prasad Ghildiyal and left for Kotdwar as his wife  was ill and was admitted in a nursing home there and later on Shri  Ghildiyal filled in the forms and sent the same to the concerned  authorities.  However, Bhagwati Prasad Ghildiyal has not deposed a  single word about making the relevant entries in the form or sending  the same to the Election Commission or the Chief Electoral Officer.   In his cross-examination he has admitted that he had not sent any  information to any authority in accordance with para 30.1 of Chapter  V of the Handbook.  The person who made the necessary entries and  filled in the forms, which had already been signed by the Returning  Officer Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, as per his statement, has not been  examined nor his name has been disclosed.  He would have been the  best person to depose that Shri Anil Kumar Yadav had given him a  blank signed form for the purpose of filling in the relevant columns.   DW-3 Shri Mahendra Prasad, SDM, who was performing the duty of  Returning Officer of another constituency, has merely stated that he  saw Anil Kumar Yadav in the office up to 5-5.30 p.m. and thereafter  the latter left for Kotdwar as his wife was ill.  His testimony does not  lend any kind of assurance to the case put forward by Shri Anil  Kumar Yadav that he had put his signature on a blank form and had  then left for Kotdwar.  If he was present in his office upto 5-5.30 p.m.  there was enough time available to him for filling in the forms. 14.     There is another piece of evidence, which creates serious doubt  regarding the conduct of the Returning Officer.  Ex. C-1 is a copy of  notice which Shri Anil Kumar Yadav issued to Shri Bhagwati Prasad  Ghildiyal on 23.1.2002 calling his explanation within three days to  show cause as to why  disciplinary action be not taken against him for  having received Forms ’A’ and ’B’, which were submitted by the  appellant at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002.  It is a fairly long notice running  into about 16 lines.  A reply of this notice was given by Shri Bhagwati  Prasad Ghaldiyal on 24.1.2002, which is Ex.-C-2 on the record.  It  looks not only doubtful but also highly improbable that though Shri  Anil Kumar Yadav did not perform a very important official duty  which was cast upon him by virtue of being the Returning Officer,  namely, of himself sending the list of nominated candidates as  prescribed in para 30.1 of Chapter V of the Handbook and after  signing the blank forms he left it to his Assistant to make the  necessary entries therein and to send to the Election Commission and  Chief Electoral Officer, etc. on the supposed ground that his wife was  ill and he had to rush to Kotdwar, yet he took pains to issue a notice  on the same day, i.e., 23.1.2002 to Shri Bhagwati Prasad Ghildiyal to  show cause as to why disciplinary action may not be taken against  him. There was hardly any urgency in the matter and the show cause  notice could have been issued later at any point of time.  Anyone who  has been assigned the important work of Returning Officer would first  perform his official duty of sending the list of nominated candidates to  the concerned authorities and would not waste time in issuing show  cause notice to a subordinate employee regarding the proposed  disciplinary action.  The issuance of show cause notice on the same  day, i.e., 23.1.2002 creates a serious doubt on the bonafides of Shri  Anil Kumar Yadav and in fact shows that evidence was being  manufactured in order to justify the interpolations made in the  nomination papers whereby they were rejected. 15.     Shri V.A. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondent has  submitted that Shri Anil Kumar Yadav would not have had the  courage to make interpolations in the nomination papers as at the  relevant time it was the Bhartiya Janata Party, which was in power in  the State of Uttaranchal.  Shri Yadav has admitted in his cross-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

examination that he is an officer of U.P. cadre and he had not opted  for Uttaranchal State.  It is, therefore, obvious that he was bound to  come back to U.P. and was not to serve in the State of Uttaranchal.   16.     Shri Mohta has also submitted that the result of the election  should not be lightly interfered with and the election petitioner must  lead strong and cogent evidence to establish his case for setting aside  the election of a returned candidate.  This principle is not of universal  application.  This is not a case where the election petition may have  been filed on the ground of corrupt practice or improper acceptance or  rejection of ballot papers or any error in counting of votes.  The  election petition has been filed on the ground that the appellant’s  nomination papers had been improperly rejected, which is a ground  contemplated by Section 100(1)(c) of the Act.  In such a case the only  issue before the Court is to examine the correctness and propriety of  the order by which the nomination papers of a candidate are rejected  and the scope of inquiry is limited to the said consideration.   17.     Having given our careful consideration to the evidence on  record and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties  we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has succeeded in  establishing that he had filed his nomination papers along with Forms  ’A’ and ’B’ on 22.1.2002 and his nomination papers were improperly  rejected.  In view of this finding the election of the respondent  Surendra Singh Negi has to be declared as void. 18.     In the result the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.  The  election petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the election of  the respondent Surendra Singh Negi is declared to be void. The  Election Commission of India shall hold a fresh election for 29  Kotdwar Assembly Constituency of Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly  at the earliest.