http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: B. DANDAPANI PATRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RETURNING OFFICER-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,BERHAMPUR AND O

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1989

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 100  1990 SCC  (1) 505  JT 1990 (2)   616        1990 SCALE  (1)24

ACT:     Representation of the People Act, 1950/Representation of the  People Act, 1951/Registration of Electors Rules,  1980: Sections  16 and 21 /Section 33/Rules 16-21A and  22--Candi- date--Elector  of different constituency--Producing  of  at- tested  copy of relevant part of electoral roll as it  stood before final revision--Rejection of nomination paper-Validi- ty of--Attested copy of electoral roll--What is.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant was a candidate for election to the Legis- lative  Assembly.  As he was standing for  election  from  a constituency other than the one in which he was an  elector, he filed an attested copy of the relevant part of the  elec- toral  roll relating to the constituency in which he was  an elector, along with the nomination paper. On an objection by one  of the candidates, the Returning Officer rejected  the. appellant’s nomination paper for non-compliance with Section 33(5)  of  the Representation of the People Act,  1951.  The appellant filed an Election Petition before the High  Court, which dismissed the same.     In  the  appeal filed before this Court,  the  appellant contended  that since he had produced before  the  Returning Officer  an attested copy of the relevant part of the  elec- toral  roll of the constituency in which he was an  elector, the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of  non- compliance with Section 33(5) of the said Act was wrong  and bad in law. Dismissing the appear, this Court,     HELD:  The  publication of the integrated  roll  is  not essential  for  the  revision of the electoral  roll  to  be complete  and  the electoral roll with the  amendments  duly published becomes the final electoral roll for the constitu- ency. [103D]     In  the instant case, admittedly, the electoral roll  of the  State Assembly was directed to be revised and  was,  in fact,  revised as on January 1, 1984 and  the  supplementary electoral roll notifying the 101 changes to be incorporated on the revision was published and available before February 1985. [102F]     However, what the appellant produced before the  Return-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

ing Officer was not an attested copy of the final  electoral roll  for the said constituency although the final roll  was available,  but only an attested copy of the electoral  roll as it stood on July 21, 1983. The production of such attest- ed  copy  of the relevant part of the electoral roll  as  it stood before the final revision cannot amount to  compliance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of  the said  Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly  rejected. [103F] Ranjit  Singh  v.  Pritam Singh & Ors., [1966]  3  SCR  543, relied on.     Jagannath  Ramchandra  Nunekar v. Gene  Govind  Kadam  & Ors., [1988] 3 Judgments Today 662, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.  2542 (NCE) of 1986.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  24.1.1986  of  the Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1985. S.P. Singh and S.K. Jain for the Appellant. G.L. Sanghi, M.A Firoz and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA,  J.  This  is an appeal from the  judgment  of  a learned  Single  Judge of the Orissa High  Court  dismissing Election  Petition No. 7 of 1985 filed by the  appellant  in that Court.     The  facts  of the case have been fully set out  in  the impugned  judgment of the High Court and hence, little  pur- pose  would  be served in setting them out  here  again.  It should be sufficient to note only the few facts required  to be set out to appreciate the controversy arising before us.     The election in question was to the Legislative Assembly of  the  Orissa  State from  74-Gopalpur  (SchedUled  Caste) Assembly Constituency. This election was held in March 1985. The last date for filing the nomination papers was  February 8, 1985. The date of scrutiny was 102 as  February  9, 1985. The last date for withdrawal  of  the nominations was February 11, 1985, February 10, 1985 being a Sunday.  The appellant duly filed his nomination papers  for the  seat and along with the other papers, he filed  an  at- tested  copy  of  the relevant part of  the  electoral  roll relating to 67 Sorada Assembly Constituency in which he  was an  elector. This was required because he was  standing  for election from a constituency other than the one in which  he was  an elector. On an objection by one of  the  candidates, the  said nomination paper was rejected  for  non-compliance with section 33(5) of the Representation of the People  Act, 1951  (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The  con- tention of the appellant is that he had produced before  the Returning  Officer an attested copy of the relevant part  of the  electoral roll of the constituency in which he  was  an elector and hence, the rejection of his nomination paper  on the ground of non-compliance with section 33(5) of the  said Act was wrong and bad in law.     As we have already pointed out, it is common ground that what  the appellant produced before the  Re.turning  Officer was  an attested copy of the relevant part of the  electoral roll  of  the constituency in’ which he was an  elector  and that  copy  admittedly was dated July 13, 1983. There  is  a finding  that  the appellant had obtained the said  copy  on July  19,  1983 although he sought to contend  that  he  had obtained it on July 19, 1984. The correctness of that  find-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

ing  has rightly not been assailed before us. Section 15  of the  Representation  of the People  Act,  1950  (hereinafter referred  to as "the 2950 Act") provides that for  any  con- stituency  there shall be an electoral roll which  shall  be prepared in accordance with the provisions of that Act under the directions and supervision of the Election Commission.     It  is the admitted position in the case before us  that the  electoral roll of the Orissa Legislative Assembly,  was directed  to  be  revised and was, in fact,  revised  as  on January 1, 1984 and the supplementary electoral roll notify- ing  the  changes  to be incorporated on  the  revision  was published and available before February 1985. Section 21  of the  1950  Act deals with the preparation  and  revision  of electoral rolls. Sub-section (1) of that section states that the  electoral roll for each constituency shall be  prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and  shall come into force immediately upon its  publication according  to  law. Clause (a) of sub-section  (2)  of  that section  provides unless otherwise directed by the  Election Commission  the electoral roll shall be revised in the  pre- scribed manner with reference to the qualifying date  before each  General Election to the House of the People or to  the Legislative Assembly of a State. The provisions 103 of  Rule  22  of the Registration of  Electors  Rules,  1960 (hereinafter  referred to as "the said Rules of 1960")  read with  the provisions of Rules 15 to 21-A thereof  show  that when  the  electoral  roll has to be revised  the  names  of persons  inadvertently omitted have to be included  and  the names  of dead electors and of persons who ceased to  be  or are  not ordinarily resident in the constituency have to  be deleted  from the electoral roll and so on. After this,  the officer  concerned  prepares the list of  amendments  to  be carried out to the electoral roll. Provisions are also  made for the correction of any clerical or printing errors in the earlier roll. After the completion of this task, either  the entire  revised  electoral  roll is to be  prepared  or  the amendments  in the existing electoral roll have to  be  made and  incorporated in the electoral roll and published  sepa- rately  along with the original electoral roll.  A  complete electoral roll is made available for inspection and a notice to  that effect is displayed in Form No. 16. Rule  22(2)  of the  said Rules of 1960 lays that on such  publication,  the roll  together  with  the list of amendments  shall  be  the electoral  roll of the constituency. Subrule (3) of Rule  22 of the said Rules of 1960 shows that these amendments may be incorporated and an integrated roll may be published subject to any general or special directions issued by the  Election Commission.  It is clear on the reading of these  provisions that the publication of the integrated roll is not essential for  the revision of the electoral roll to be  complete  and the  electoral roll with the amendments duly  published  be- comes the final electoral roll for the constituency. In  the present  case, it is clear that what the appellant  produced before the Returning Officer was not an attested copy of the final  electoral  roll  for the said  constituency  for  the election in question although the final roll was  available. What he produced was an attested copy of the electoral  roll as  it  stood on July 21, 1983 and the  production  of  such attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll  as it stood before the final revision cannot amount to  compli- ance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 33 of the said Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly reject- ed.     We  are supported in our views by the decision  of  this

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

Court  in Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh & Ors., [1966] 3  SCR 543. It was held that:               "When  S. 33(5) refers to a copy of the  rele-               vant  parts of the electoral roll, it means  a               part  as  defined in rule 5. A  complete  copy               would carry the various amendments made in the               roll  and enable the Returning Officer to  see               whether the name of the candidate continued in               the  roll  for  the  whole  of  the   relevant               period." 104     In  the aforesaid judgment, it has been held  that  when section 33(5) of the said Act refers to a copy of the  rele- vant part of the electoral roll, it means a part as  defined in Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1960. The complete copy would carry the various amendments made in the roll to enable  the Returning  Officer to see whether the name of the  candidate continues in the roll.     Learned counsel for the appellant placed a strong  reli- ance  on the decision of this Court in Jagannath  Ramchandra Nunekar  v.  Gene Govind Kadam & Ors.,  [1988]  3  Judgments Today 662. That judgment is, however, clearly  distinguisha- ble on facts. In that case, a certified copy of the relevant entry  in the electoral roll was furnished to the  appellant on January 8, 1986 which was only one day before the date on which he filed his nomination paper. The presumption  would, therefore, arise that such a certified copy would be of  the relevant entry in the final electoral roll and that presump- tion was justified on the actual facts. That decision has no application  to  this  case where a certified  copy  of  the relevant  part  of the electoral roll was  applied  for  and obtained several months before the revision of the electoral roll.  The  ratio of the judgment cited is,  therefore,  not applicable to the case before us. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. N.P.V.                                Appeal dismissed. 105