http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4981 of 2006

PETITIONER: Mohd. Akram Ansari

RESPONDENT: Chief Election Officer & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/12/2007

BENCH: A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4981 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5828 OF 2006 Naved Yar Khan                                          ..                  Appellant -versus- Haroon Yusuf and Anr.                                   ..              Respondents

1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties including the appellant  appearing in person in C.A. No. 5828/2006.  The appellant in C.A. No.  5828/2006 is also respondent No. 6 in C.A. No. 4981/2006.

2.      C.A. No. 4981/2006 is directed against the judgment and order dated  22.8.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in  Election Petition No. 2/2004.  C.A. No. 5828/2006 is directed against the  judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the same learned Single  Judge of the High Court in Election Petition  No. 3/2004.  The appellant in  C.A. No. 5828/2006 (who was petitioner in Election Petition No. 3/2004)  has stated before the High Court that Election Petitions No. 2 and 3 of 2004  were almost identical and hence no evidence was recorded in Election  Petition No. 3/2004.

3.      The facts of the case are that the appellant contested the election to the  Delhi Legislative Assembly in 2003 but lost.  The respondent Haroon Yusuf  was declared elected. At the time of the election Haroon Yusuf was also the  Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board.  

4.      The question involved in both these appeals is whether the office of  Chairperson or Members of the Walf Board is an office of profit so as to  disqualify a person from being elected as a member of the Legislative  Assembly of NCT of Delhi.  It may be noted here that an amendment has  been brought about in the Wakf Act, 1995 by way of The Wakf (Delhi  Amendment) Act, 2006 (Delhi Act 3 of 2006) by inserting Section 31A in  the 1995 Act.  Section 31A of the Wakf Act, 1995 as amended by The Wakf  (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2006 reads as under :-                  

\02331A.  Prevention of disqualification for membership of  Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of  Delhi. It is hereby declared that the offices of the  Chairperson or Members of the Board constituted for  Union Territory of Delhi shall not be disqualified and  shall be deemed never to have been disqualified for being  chosen as, or for being, a member of the Legislative  Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

5.      The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that the aforesaid  Section 31A came into force only in 2006, whereas the election was held in  2003, and the election petition was filed on 13.1.2004.  He submitted that  Section 31A is not retrospective and hence will have no application to  elections held before 2006.  We do not agree.

6.      It is true that the Amendment Act 2006 does not specifically state that  it is retrospective. However, the use of the words \023and shall be deemed  never to have been disqualified\024 in the above provision makes it clear that  it is retrospective.     

7.      The words \023and shall be deemed never to have been disqualified\024  in Section  31A creates a legal fiction.  Legal fictions are well-known in law.   In the oft-quoted passage of Lord Asquith in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd.  vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587 it was observed:

\023If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as  real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so,  also imagine as real the consequence and incidents  which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed,  must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it--   The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of  affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must  cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it  comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of  affairs\024.

8.      The aforesaid observation has been approved and followed by our  own Supreme Court in a series of decisions e.g. Bhavnagar University vs.  Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. 2003(2) SCC 111 (para 33),  Raja Shatrunjit  (dead) by Lrs  vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan and others AIR 1971  SC 1474 etc.   

9.      Hence, even if the elected candidate was disqualified in the year 2003,  he has to be deemed not to have been disqualified in view of Section 31-A  which was inserted in the year 2006.

10.     In view of the above it is not necessary for us to go into the question  as to whether de hors Section 31A the office of Chairperson of the Wakf  Board can be said to be an office of profit.  The aforesaid question has  become academic now after the insertion of Section 31A.   

11.     The appellant then submitted that apart from the point that the elected  candidate Haroon Yusuf was holding an office of profit, the appellant had  also raised a large number of other points in the election petition, including  the allegation of corrupt practice by Haroon Yusuf, but these have not been  dealt with by the High Court.  He submitted that the High Court should have  dealt with all the points mentioned in the election petition.

12.     We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the High  Court and we find that the only point discussed therein is the point whether  Haroof Yusuf was disqualified because he was holding an office of profit.   No other point has been discussed in the aforesaid judgment.   

13.     The appellant submitted that he had taken a large number of points in  his election petition, but they have wrongly not been discussed in the  impugned judgment.

14.     In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in  law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before  him.  It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in  the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only  some of these points are pressed.  Naturally a Judge will deal only with the

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

points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be  presumed that the appellant gave up the other points, otherwise he would  have dealt with them also.  If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a  Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the  learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable  presumption.  In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point  also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to  him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which  delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench)  that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the  impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate  orders, including an order of review.  However, it is not ordinarily open to  the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in  the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt  with in the judgment of the Court below.  The party who has this grievance  must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the  other points were pressed but not dealt with.

15.     Since no other point except the point of office of profit has been dealt  with in the impugned judgment of the High Court, the presumption is that no  other point was pressed before the High Court, even though the point may  have been contained in the election petition.  Hence we do not allow these  points to be raised here.

16.     With the observations made above, the appeals are dismissed.  No  costs.