http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MATHURA PRASAD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJEEM KHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2274            1990 SCR  (2) 503  1990 SCC  (3) 659        JT 1990 (2)   331  1990 SCALE  (1)754

ACT:     Representation  of  People  Act,  1951:  Section  33(4), 36(4),  88  and, 116-A--Returning  Officer--Finding  out  of identity of candidate-Order rejecting nomination papers of a candidate--Validity  of--Held  no  statutory  duty  cast  on Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry.

HEADNOTE:      Election to the Legislative Assembly of the  State  of Madhya Pradesh was held in February, 1985. For  Constituency No.  14  Lahar (Distt. Bhind) nomination papers  were  filed before  6th February, 1985 and scrutiny done on February  7, 1985. During the scrutiny the nomination paper of Ramprakash who was one of the candidates was rejected by the  Returning Officer. The order rejecting the paper reads as under: "Candidate is not identified as per electoral roll. His  rep resentative has accepted this mistake also. Hence  rejected. Advised  for correction but did not correct.  The  candidate did not correct after advising to correct mistake. Even  did not appear at the time of Scrutiny to correct mistake. Hence rejected. See Section 33(4) R.P.A."     Result of the election was declared on’ 5th March,  1985 and the appellant declared elected.     The  election  of the appellant was  challenged  by  the Respondent  who  was one of the voters of  the  constituency through  an  election petition on several  grounds-the  main ground being the wrongful rejection of the nomination  paper of  Ramprakash.  On the pleadings of the  parties  the  High Court framed issue No. 1 which reads as under:     (i) Whether rejection of the nomination paper of Rampra- kash by the Returning Officer was illegal, as alleged?     The  High Court on an analysis of the evidence  came  to the  conclusion that the entire story advanced by the  elec- tion  petitioner  and his witnesses was  a  fabrication  and deserved to be rejected outright. How- 504 ever  after recording this finding the learned single  judge of  the  High  Court went on to hold  that  the  candidate’s absence was immaterial and the Returning Officer could  have himself  found  out the electoral number  of  the  candidate Ramprakash readily with a little effort without the  assist-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

ance of any of the persons mentioned in Section 36(1) of the Act  and that the defect in the nomination paper  cannot  be held to be of a substantial character. Issue No. 1 was  thus decided in favour of the election petitioner as a result  of which the election petition was allowed and the election  of the appellant declared void. Hence this appeal by the elect- ed  candidate.  Allowing the appeal and  setting  aside  the judgment of the High Court, this Court,     HELD:  There is no statutory duty cast on the  Returning Officer to himself look through the entire electoral roll of a  particular  part with a view to finding out  the  correct identity  of  a candidate at the time of the  scrutiny  even though neither the candidate himself nor any other represen- tative on his behalf was present to cure the defect.  [516B- D]     A  perusal of the circumstances put forward by the  wit- nesses at the time of scrutiny and rejection of the  nomina- tion  paper of Ramprakash shows that Ramprakash himself  was not  present and even his proposer Jaiprakash  after  having gone to fetch Ramprakash did not return back and  ultimately the  Returning  Officer  rejected the  nomination  paper  of Ramprakash.  The order passed by the Returning  Officer  re- jecting  the nomination paper of Ramprakash clearly makes  a mention  that the candidate was not identified as per  elec- toral roll. His representative had accepted the mistake also and was advised for correction but did not correct the same. The candidate did not correct after advising to correct  the mistake. It further makes a mention that the candidate  even did  not appear at the time of scrutiny to correct the  mis- take. In the circumstances mentioned above we have no  hesi- tation  at  all in holding that the  Returning  Officer  was perfectly  justified  in rejecting the nomination  paper  of Ramprakash. [509A-C]     . It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case to  find  as to what mistake in a nomination  paper  can  be considered  a mistake of substantial nature. It  is  correct that  the Returning Officer should not reject  a  nomination paper  merely  on a mistake of technical or  formal  nature, where  the identity of the candidate can be  ascertained  by him  on the material made available to him. He  should  also give  an opportunity to the candidate or his  representative present at the time of scrutiny to remove the defect. Howev- er, in case neither the candidate nor his representative  be present and without removing such defect in the 505 nomination  paper  the identity of the candidate  cannot  be ascertained,  then  there is no statutory duty cast  on  the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry by going  through the  material  placed before him and to remove  such  defect himself. [509D-F]     Lila  Krishan v. Mani Ram Godara & Ors.,  [1985]  Suppl. S.C.RI 592; Dalip Kumar Gon. v. Durga Prasad Singh, AIR 1974 SC  2343; Amolak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh, [1968] 3 SCR  246 and Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985] 3 SCR 321, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  673  of 1986.     From the Judgment & Order dated 17.2.1986 of the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 41 of 1985. S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B .K. Satija for the  Appel- lant. Mrs. J. Wad for the Respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL,  J.  This appeal under Section  116-A  of  the Representation  of People Act, 1951 (in short "the Act")  is directed  against the Judgment of the High Court  of  Madhya Pradesh  dated 17th February, 1986. Election of  Legislative Assembly  of  the State of Madhya Pradesh was  held  in  the month  of February, 1985. One of the Constituencies was  No. 14 Lahar (District Bhind). The nomination papers were  filed before  6th February, 1985 and the scrutiny was done on  7th February,  1985.  Several  persons  filed  their  nomination papers.  The nomination paper of Ramprakash was rejected  by the  Returning Officer in the scrutiny. The order passed  by the  Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper  reads as under: "Candidate  is  not identified as per  electoral  roll.  His representative has accepted this mistake also. Hence reject- ed.  Advised for correction but did not correct. The  candi- date did not correct after advising to correct mistake. Even did not appear at the time of scrutiny to correct mistake. Hence rejected. See section 33(4) R.P.A." Result  of the election was declared on 5th March, 1985  and Shri 506 Mathura Prasad appellant declared elected.     Ajeem  Khan one of the voters of the Constituency  filed an  election petition under Sec. 88 of the  Act  challenging the election of Mathura Prasad on several grounds but it  is not necessary to state all the grounds as the controversy in the  present appeal centres round the wrongful rejection  of the  nomination  paper  of Ramprakash. The  ground  in  this regard  taken in the election petition was that the  nomina- tion paper of Ramprakash was wrongly rejected as the  defect in his nomination paper was not of a substantial  character. It was alleged that in the nomination paper filed by Rampra- kash  the  column meant for stating the  candidate’s  serial number  in  the electoral roll was left blank. 1t  was  thus alleged that the said defect was not of a substantial  char- acter and the nomination paper should not have been rejected in view of the provisions contained in Section 36(4) of  the Act.     On the other hand the case of Mathura Prasad, the elect- ed  candidate  was  that neither Ramprakash  nor  any  other person on his behalf was present before the Returning  Offi- cer when the nomination paper of Ramprakash was taken up for scrutiny. At the time of scrutiny, the Returning Officer had pointed  out  that  voter number was not  mentioned  in  the nomination paper and Jaiprakash (RW.3) who ’was the proposer of  Ramprakash had told the Returning Officer that he  would inform Ramprakash regarding the above defect. The  Returning Officer then put that nomination paper aside and took  other nomination papers for scrutiny. Jaiprakash remained  present in the hail awaiting the arrival of Ramprakash. The  Return- ing  Officer  after scrutinising all  the  other  nomination papers  again called out the name of Ramprakash. As  Rampra- kash  had  not arrived till then, Jaiprakash left  the  hall after  informing the Returning Officer that he  would  fetch Ramprakash. Jaiprakash left the place and went in search  of Ramprakash but his efforts to search Ramprakash went in vain and he did not return back before the Returning Officer.  In view  of  the  above circumstances,  the  Returning  Officer passed  the order rejecting the nomination paper of  Rampra- kash under sec. 33(4) of the Act.     On the pleadings of the parties Learned Single Judge  of the High Court who tried the election petition framed  Issue No. 1 in this regard which reads as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

(i) Whether rejection of the nomination paper of  Ramprakash by the Returning Officer was illegal, as alleged? 507 Both the parties lead evidence in support of their case. The petitioner in support of his case regarding the above  issue examined himself, Mitthookhan, Gourishanker and Pahalwan. By the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses a story was put forward that shortly before the nomination paper of  Rampra- kash was taken up for scrutiny, Ramprakash had gone out  for passing urine. He had left behind Mitthookhan as his  repre- sentative  and when the nomination paper of  Ramprakash  was taken  up for scrutiny and the defect was pointed out,  Mit- thookhan after informing the Returning Officer went out  for calling  Ramprakash. He alongwith Ramprakash  returned  back after five minutes only but the nomination paper had already been rejected by the Returning Officer.     On  the  contrary Mathura Prasad  examined  himself  and Jaiprakash  who was not only the proposer of Ramprakash  but was also his cousin. Jaiprakash fully supported the case  of Mathura Prasad.     Learned  Single  Judge after analysing the  evidence  of both  the parties arrived to the conclusion that the  entire story  as advanced by the election petitioner and  his  wit- nesses  was  obviously a fabrication. He further  held  that such  story  being  fabricated it deserved  to  be  rejected outright. He further observed as under: "The  versions of the respondent (R.W. 1)  are  corroborated not only by the returning officer Shri Hoshiyarsingh,  exam- ined  by the petitioner himself as P.W. 1, but also  by  the petitioner’s  cousin  Jaiprakash (R.W. 3) who was  also  his proposer  and  the  evidence is  also  consistent  with  the grounds of rejection stated by the returning officer in  his order. The returning officer Shri Hoshiyarsingh (P.W. 1)  is an  independent  witness  and Jaiprakash (R.W.  3),  who  is cousin  and  proposer of Ramprakash (P.W. 4),  also  has  no reason  to tell lies. I, therefore, see no reason to  disbe- lieve  the  versions of the respondent (P.W. 1) as  to  what transpired when the nomination paper of Ramprakash (P.W.  4) came  up for scrutiny and under which circumstances  it  was rejected by the returning officer". After  recording the above finding the Learned Single  Judge took  into  consideration the fact that  in  the  nomination paper of Ramprakash, his name, his father’s name, his postal address,  the number and name of the Constituency  to  which nomination paper related and the 508 number  of the part of the electoral roll of the  same  con- stituency in which part his name was entered as a voter were duly  and correctly filled up. It was further observed  that Exhibit P. 1 a certified copy of that part of the  electoral roll  showed  that  the total number  of  voters  registered therein  was  10 11 and the name of Ramprakash  was  entered therein  at  serial No. 735. At the time  of  scrutiny,  the Returning Officer must have naturally been assisted by  some members  of  his  subordinate staff.  Learned  Single  Judge further  observed  that according to the  Returning  Officer himself the nomination paper was put of by him in the  midst of the scrutiny proceedings and it was rejected subsequently after the scrutiny of all other nomination papers was  over. There was thus ample time to locate the serial number of the candidate in the above-mentioned part of the electoral roll. The  Returning Officer had admitted that no effort was  made by  him  to locate it. Learned Single Judge  thus  concluded that it was not the contention of the Returning Officer that it was not possible for him to locate the name of Ramprakash

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

in the electoral roll and find out his serial number but  in fact  the Returning Officer made no effort in  this  regard. Learned Single Judge distinguished a decision of this  Court in  Lila  Krishan v. Mani Ram Godara & Ors.,  [1985]  Suppl. S.C.R.  1 592. He further held that candidate’s absence  was immaterial  and  the Returning Officer  could  have  himself found  out the electoral number of the candidate  Ramprakash readily with a very little effort by referring to the  elec- toral  roll part mentioned in the nomination paper  and  the same  being also available with him at the time of  scrutiny the  electoral number could have been found out without  the assistance of any of the persons mentioned in Sec. 36(1)  of the  Act  and the defect in the nomination paper  cannot  be held to be of a substantial character. Issue No. 1 was  thus decided  in  favour of the petitioner Ajeem Khan  and  as  a result  of which the election petition was allowed  and  the election of Mathura Prasad was declared void.     Aggrieved against the decision of the High Court, Mathu- ra  Prasad  the winning candidate filed the  present  appeal before  this Court. We have heard learned counsel  for  both the parties and in our view this appeal has to be allowed.     As  already  mentioned above the  Learned  Single  Judge himself  did  not  accept the story as put  forward  by  the petitioner  Ajeem Khan, rather it was held that  the  entire story  narrated  by him was a fabrication and the  same  de- served  to be rejected outright. The Returning  Officer  who was an independent witness and Jaiprakash who was a proposer of Ramprakash were believed and it was held that the entire 509 circumstances under which the nomination paper of Ramprakash came  up for scrutiny and was rejected were correct. Thus  a perusal of the circumstances put forward by these  witnesses at  the  time of scrutiny and rejection  of  the  nomination paper  of Ramprakash shows that Ramprakash himself  was  not present  and even his proposer Jaiprakash after having  gone to  fetch Ramprakash did not return back and ultimately  the Returning  Officer rejected the nomination paper of  Rampra- kash.  The order passed by the Returning  Officer  rejecting the  nomination paper of Ramprakash clearly makes a  mention that the candidate was not identified as per electoral roll. His  representative  had accepted the mistake also  and  was advised  for  correction but did not correct the  same.  The candidate  did  not correct after advising  to  correct  the mistake. It further makes a mention that the candidate  even did  not appear at the time of scrutiny to correct the  mis- take. In the circumstances mentioned above we have no  hesi- tation  at  all in holding that the  Returning  Officer  was perfectly  justified  in rejecting the nomination  paper  of Ramprakash.  It  depends on the facts and  circumstances  of each  case to find as to what mistake in a nomination  paper can  be  considered a mistake of substantial nature.  It  is correct  that  the  Returning Officer should  not  reject  a nomination paper merely on a mistake of technical or  formal nature,  where the identity of the candidate can  be  ascer- tained  by  him on the material made available  to  him.  He should  also  give an opportunity to the  candidate  or  his representative present at the time of scrutiny to remove the defect.  However,  in  case neither the  candidate  nor  his representative  be present and without removing such  defect in the nomination paper the identity of the candidate cannot be ascertained, then there is no statutory duty cast on  the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry by going  through the  Material  placed before him and to remove  such  defect himself.     We  may also refer to some cases cited before us at  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

bar. Dalip Kumar Gon v. Durga Prasad Singh, AIR 1974 SC 2343 is  the  case on which strong reliance has  been  placed  by Learned  counsel  for Ajeem Khan. In the above case  in  the column of printed nomination form meant for making a  decla- ration  of the candidates of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe  con- testing  for  a reserve seat, Abdul  Hamid  contesting  from general  constituency had not (a) filled his specific  caste in  the blank meant for that purpose and further (b) he  had in  that column left the words ’Scheduled Castes’  unscored. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers on  the ground that the failure of the candidate to delete the words ’Scheduled Castes’ means that "he belongs to Scheduled Caste which is not true" and consequently, the 510 nomination papers were not filled up properly. An  electoral of the constituency filed an election petition on the ground that the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid and Khatir Ali had been  improperly rejected. Learned Single Judge of the  High Court upheld the above rejection of nomination paper by  the Returning  Officer and held that the candidate’s filling  of these  enteries were on the face of it, not proper  and  did not comply with the requirements of law. It was further held that  this  defect  was not trivial or technical  but  of  a substantial  character. On appeal before the  Supreme  Court the Judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held as under: "The  High  Court’s view that in scoring out only  the  word ’Jan-Jati’  (tribe)  and  leaving the  word  ’Jati’  (caste) untouched  in the aforesaid column of the  nomination  form, Abdul  Hamid had failed "to comply with the  requirement  of the  law  on  the subject" ’was  entirely  misconceived.  It overlooked  the  fact that the Jamtara  Constituency  was  a ’General’ Constituency and the seat for which the candidates wanted  to  contest the election was not  a  Reserved  seat. Section  33(2) of the Representation of the People Act,  195 1,  or any other statutory provision does not enjoin upon  a candidate who is contesting the election for a General Seat, and  not for a Reserved Seat, to specify in his  declaration his caste or tribe. Further, the ’Returning Officer  appear- ing as R.W. 2, had clearly admitted that at the time of  the scrutiny  of the nomination papers, he was aware that  Abdul Hamid  was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and  that  he had deposited Rs.250 as security. The omission to strike off the column in the printed nomination form relating to Sched- uled  Caste/Tribe did not amount to a defect in the  eye  of law,  much less was it a defect of a substantial  character, warranting  rejection  of the nomination  papers  in  Amolak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 246=AIR 1968 SC 1203. The  nomination  papers of two candidates contesting  for  a general  constituency  were rejected on  a  similar  ground. Holding  that  the  rejection was  improper,  Ramaswami,  J. Speaking for  the Court stated the law on tile point thus: "The printed form 2-A is meant both for general and reserved constituencies  but why it is obligatory for  candidates  in the  reserved  constituency  to make a  declaration  in  the proper 511 column  that he is a member of a particular caste  or  tribe there  is no such rule with regard to general  constituency. Sec. 33(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the candidate in  the reserved constituency to make a declaration  in  the proper column but there is no such direction in the  statute with  regard to the general constituencies. In our  opinion, the mention of the caste of the candidate in the  nomination form  was a clear superfluity because it was  not  necessary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

for the candidate to fill in the column when he was contest- ing in a general constituency.                In the light of what has been said above,  we would,  reverse the finding of the High Court and hold  that the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid were improperly reject- ed by the Returning Officer".     In the above case the facts were entirely different  and it  lends  no assistance to the case set up by  Ajeem  Khan, respondent before us. In the above case it was clearly  held that Sec. 33(2) of the Act or any other Statutory  provision does  not  enjoin  upon a candidate who  is  contesting  the election for a general seat, and not for a reserved seat, to specify in his declaration his caste or tribe. However,  the Returning  Officer had clearly admitted that at the time  of the  scrutiny  of the nomination papers, he was  aware  that Abdul Hamid was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and that he  had deposited Rs.250 as security. Thus it was held  that the omission to strike of the column in the printed  nomina- tion form relating to Scheduled Castes/Tribe did not  amount to a defect in the eye of law, much less it was a defect  of a substantial character.     In  Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985] 3 SCR 321 one Dog  Ram had  filed his nomination papers for contesting election  to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Jind Constituency. His name was proposed by Ram Pratap, an elector of the Constitu- ency. Dog Ram was registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house number 57 in part 39 of the electoral roll of  the constituency whereas his proposer Ram Pratap was  registered as  electoral at serial No. 313. and house number 6 in  part 39 of the same constituency. The name and postal address  of Dog  Ram were correctly given in the nomination  papers  but the  part of the electoral roll was mentioned as 57  instead of 39 by an inadvertant mistake committed by the person  who filed the nomination papers. 512 Similarly  in the case of the proposer the serial number  of the  elector and the members of the constituency were  given correctly but the number of his house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part of the electoral roll. At  the time of scrutiny no other candidate or proposer objected  to the  acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram  but  the Returning  Officer of his own rejected the nomination  paper on  the  ground that particulars of the  candidate  and  the proposer had been wrongly entered in the nomination papers.     The High Court considered the question as to whether the nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected. On  the evidence led by the parties the Single Judge found that  the candidate Dog Ram and his proposer were registered as voters in the constituency and were qualified to contest the  elec- tion and propose the candidate respectively. It was  further found that errors in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidates  and the proposer in the electoral roll  and  the nomination paper do not constitute defects of a  substantial character  as mentioned in the Proviso to Section  33(4)  of the  Act. Learned Single Judge accepted the evidence of  the proposer  (P.W.2) to the effect that when he and the  candi- date  presented the nomination paper, the Returning  Officer told them that it was in order and that the Returning  Offi- cer  had  tripped them into an error and  if  the  Returning Officer had told them that there were some discrepancies  in the nomination paper they would have either made corrections then  and there and could have gone more fully  prepared  to make objections at the time of the scrutiny. The High  Court in these circumstances allowed the election petition on  the ground  that the nomination paper of Dog Ram was  improperly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

rejected.     On appeal to this Court by the elected candidate it  was held  that the Returning Officer could not be said  to  have improperly  rejected the nomination paper of Dog  Ram.  This Court did not believe the evidence of proposer (P.W.2) which was  not corroborated by the evidence of any other  witness. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was held  that the Single Judge was not justified in accepting the evidence of  P.W.2  and  in holding that the  Returning  Officer  was guilty  of  tripping the candidate and the proposer  by  any assertion  on his part into anyone believing that there  was nothing  wrong  in the nomination paper. In the  above  case this Court observed as under: "It  is  not possible to say generally and in  the  abstract that  all errors in regard to electoral rolls or  nomination papers do not constitute defects of a substantial character. They 513 would  not be defects of a substantial character only if  at the  time  of the scrutiny the Returning Officer  either  by himself  with  the materials placed before  him  during  the scrutiny  or  with the assistance of the  candidate  or  his proposer or any other person is able to find out the correct serial  number  of  the candidate and the  proposer  in  the electoral roll. If that is not the case, he would be commit- ting a grave error by accepting the nomination paper without verifying  whether the candidate is a voter in that  or  any other constituency of the State and whether the proposer  is a voter in that constituency". "The  candidate and,the proposer are always expected  to  go fully  prepared to meet any objection that may be raised  by any candidate or even by Returning Officer himself suo  motu at  the time of the scrutiny and they cannot be expected  to go any the less prepared merely because the Returning  Offi- cer  had received the nomination paper without  raising  any objection.  It is at the time of scrutiny which is  done  in the  presence  of all concerned that the  nomination  papers come up for more detailed consideration at the hands of  the Returning  Officer  against  whom there is  no  estoppel  in regard to the statutory duty of scrutiny".     In  the  above  case this Court clearly  held  that  the defects  would not be of a substantial character only if  at the time of scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself with the materials placed before him during the scrutiny  or with the assistance of the candidate or his proposer or  any other  person is able to find out the correct serial  number of the candidate and the proposer in the electoral roll.  It no  where  lays down that it is the statutory  duty  of  the Returning Officer himself to cure the defect at the time  of the  scrutiny.  We cannot read in the  above  authority,  as sought to be argued by the Learned counsel for the  respond- ent,  that in the case before us even though  Ramprakash  or any  other representative on his behalf was not  present  to cure  the  defect, still it was the duty  of  the  Returning Officer himself to find out the correct identity of  Rampra- kash.  As already discussed above the learned  Single  Judge had  himself held that the case set up by Ajeem Khan  was  a fabricated  one  and the story put forward  by  the  winning candidate Mathura Prasad and his witnesses was correct. From the  evidence  of Returning Officer it was  clear  that  the defect in the nomi- 514 nation paper of Ramprakash was brought to the notice of  his proposer Jaiprakash and the nomination paper was not reject- ed  in  the first round. An ample opportunity was  given  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Jaiprakash to bring Ramprakash but he failed to turn up. The nomination paper was then rejected after the scrutiny of all other  nomination papers was over. The Returning Officer  in the above circumstances was perfectly justified in rejecting the  nomination  paper of Ramprakash. Learned  Single  Judge wrongly  distinguished the case of Lila Krishan v. Mani  Ram Godara  & Ors., [1985] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 592 (supra). In  this case the .election of Lila Krishan from Fatehbad Constituen- cy of Haryana Assembly was challenged on the ground that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram  Chhapola and Raj Tilak had been improperly rejected by the  Returning Officer.  The  Proposer of Mani Ram Chhapola  was  one  Brij Bhushan  while proposer of Raj Tilak was one Upendra  Kumar. Brij  Bhushan’s serial number in the electoral roll  was  26 while Upender Kumar’s was 77. In form 3A these numbers  were correctly indicated but in the nomination papers the numbers had  been shown as 126 and 177 respectively.  The  Returning Officer  rejected  these  nomination papers  as  the  serial numbers  of  the proposers as disclosed  in  the  nomination papers  did not tally with reference to the electoral  roll. The High Court set aside the election of Lila Kishan holding that  the Returning Officer acted mala fide and  had  either directly  or indirectly been responsible for the  alteration in  the nomination papers, since the nomination papers  when filed  were in order and while they were in the  custody  of the  Returning Officer’s establishment, interpolations  have been made and on the basis thereof of nomination papers  had been rejected.     Appeal  filed in Lila Krishan was allowed by this  Court and  it was held that the conclusion of the High Court  that the Returning Officer either by himself or through  somebody caused the interpolation to be done was totally unwarranted. On the basis of the above facts it was held as under: Indisputably  the  insistence on disclosure  of  the  serial number in the prescribed column against the proposer is  for the  purpose of indentifying the proposer  and  ascertaining that  he is competent to propose. The scope of  scrutiny  is obviously  to  verify the contents of the  nomination  paper with a view to ascertaining whether the form is in order and what is required to be complied with by the election law has been duly complied with. This Court has repeatedly held that election proceedings are strict in nature and what is 515 required  to be performed in a particular manner has  to  be done  as required or the Rules made thereunder. That is  why an  exception has been made by inserting Sub-s. (4) of  Sec- tion 36 of the Act. Therefore, to cast the obligation of the Returning Officer to look through the entire electoral  roll of a particular part with a view to finding out the identity of  the proposer is not the requirement of the law. To  read that  as an obligation is likely to lead a unworkable  posi- tion". "In  the instant case, no one was available,  for  instance, when  the Returning Officer took up the nomination paper  of Mani Ram Chhapola to indicate to the Returning Officer  that his serial number in the electoral roll was 26 and not  126. If  this  had been pointed out and on  summary  enquiry  the identity  of  Brij Bhushan was not in dispute,  there  would have been end of the matter. If the correlation has not been made  and the Returning Officer has no assistance to fix  up the  identification it cannot be said to be a defect not  of substantial  character. Moreover, it could not be  statutory obligation of the Returning Officer to scrutinise the  elec- toral roll for finding out the identity of the proposer when the  serial number turns out to be wrong. But if  interested

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

and  competent  persons point out to the  Returning  Officer that  it is a mistake, it would certainly be his  obligation to look into the matter to find out whether the mistake,  is inconsequential  and has, therefore, either to be  permitted to be corrected or to be overlooked. When scrutiny was taken up Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak on their own showing were not  present  before the Returning Officer.  Similarly,  the proposers, Brij Bhushan and Upender Kumar were also  absent. Though  there is evidence on the side of the election  peti- tioners that the Assistant Returning Officer was present  at the time of scrutiny, he as P.W. 4 has categorically  denied that  fact. The Returning Officer, R.W. 3, has  stated  that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present when he took up scrutiny on the nomination papers. There is also evidence from the side of the appellant that the Assistant  Returning Officer was not present. In the circumstances, if the  nomi- nation papers have been rejected for mistake in 516 the  nomination papers it is the candidates  themselves  who have to thank their lot and no mistake can be found with the Returning  Officer.  Therefore, the nomination  papers  were validly rejected".     Thus in the above case it was clearly laid down that  to cast an obligation on the Returning Officer to look  through the  entire electoral roll of a particular part with a  view to  finding  out  the identity of the proposer  is  not  the requirement of the law.     In the case before us even if it may be considered for a moment that by making some effort by the Returning  Officer, the  identity  of Ramprakash could  have  been  ascertained, there  being no statutory duty cast on him to do so  coupled with the fact that neither the candidate Ramprakash nor  any representative on his behalf was ready to assist the Return- ing Officer in curing the defect and in proving the  correct identity of Ramprakash, it cannot be said that the Returning Officer  committed  any error in  rejecting  the  nomination paper of Ramprakash. The Returning Officer not only  granted ample  time  but even brought the defect to  the  notice  of Jaiprakash  proposer but still the defect in the  nomination paper was not removed.     In  the result this appeal is allowed, the  Judgment  of the High Court dated 17th February, 1986 is set aside and it is  held  that the Returning Officer  rightly  rejected  the nomination paper of Ramprakash. The appellant would also be entitled to costs. R.N.J.                                          Appeal   al- lowed. 517