http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: PARMAR HIMATSINGH JUGATSINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PATEL HARMANBHAI NARSIBHAI

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/02/1974

BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN ALAGIRISWAMI, A.

CITATION:  1974 AIR  951            1974 SCR  (3) 453  1974 SCC  (2) 115  CITATOR INFO :  R          1979 SC1148  (4)  F          1988 SC1796  (8)

ACT: Representation of the  People Act, 1951-s. 33(5) and  36(4)- Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The appellant challenged the collection of the respondent to the  state  Assembly. He alleged that at the  time  of  the’ scrutiny   of  nomination  papers  the   returning   officer improperly  rejected  the nomination paper of  one  of  the, candidates  for  the  election. The  name  of  the  rejected candidate  was,  found  not on the electoral  rolls  of  the constituency  in  which he had filed his nomination  papers, but  on the rolls of another constituency.  Since  his  name was  not  correctly printed on the electoral rolls,  he  had obtained  a corrigendum to the electoral roll,  a  certified copy  of  which  was enclosed  with  the  nomination  paper. Objection   having  been  raised  by  the  respondent,   his nomination paper was     rejected  on  the ground  that  the provisions  of s. 33(5) of the Representation of People  Act were not complied. with inasmuch as he had not produced  the certified copy of all the relevant entries in the  electoral roll at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. Section  33(5)  of  the Representation  of  the  People  Act provides that where      the  candidate is an elector  to  a different constituency a copy of the electoral    roll    of that  constituency  or  of the relevant part  thereof  or  a certified copy of  the relevant entries of such roll  shall. unless it has been filed along with          the  nomination paper, be produced before the returning officer at the  time of scrutiny. The  High  Court  dismissed the  election  petition  of  the appellant. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD:  Non-compliance  with  s  33(5)  is  a  defect  of   a substantial character and is ’not covered by s. 36(4) of the Act.  The Returning Officer rightly rejected the  nomination paper and rejection cannot be held to be improper. Evidently the  rejected  candidate  is  an  elector  be  a   different constituency. That       being  the position he  could  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

complied With s. 33(5) by following one or        the  other of the three modes provided in that sub-section namely : (1) he could       have produced a copy of the electoral roll of constituency in which his name          appeared, or (2)  he could  have  produced  a copy of the relevant  part  of  the electoral  roll  of  that constituency  in  which  his  name appears  or (3) he could have produced a certified  copy  of the   relevant  entries  in  the  electoral  roll  of   that constituency.   He  however  selected  the  third  mode   by enclosing  a  certified  copy  of  the  corrigendum  to  the electoral roll. (457 D-F; 459 C-D] It  is  clear that the corrigendum did not furnish  all  the particulars  : which would be available if a certified  copy of  the relevant entries in the original electoral  roll  as well  as the corrigendum were produced before the  Returning Officer  at  the  time, of  scrutiny.   Since  the  original electoral   roll  may  be  corrected  and  amended  it   was absolutely   necessary  for  the,  satisfaction   ,of,   the Returning  Officer  that a certified copy of  not  only  the original  electoral  roll containing the relevant  entry  as also  a certified copy of the amendment list concerning  the candidate were produced at the time of scrutiny if this  had not already been filed along with the nomination paper. [457 F-G] Sri  Baru Ram v. Shrimati Prasanni & Others,  [1959]  S.C.R. 1403/14,  1421  and Narbada Prasad v. Chhagan  Lal  and  Ors [1659] 1 S.C.R. 499/502, followed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal,  No.  297  of 1973. Appeal  from  the Judgment and order of the  Gujarat.   High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1972. 454 K.   Rajendra   Chaudhuri  and  P.  ’C.   Kapur,   for   the appellant. V.   B. Patel and H.S Parihar for the, respondent, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.  This  Appeal  under  section  11  6-A  of  the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act)  is directed  against the judgment of the High Court of  Gujarat dismissing the election petition of the appellant who is an, elector  from  Mahudha constituency for the  Gujarat  :State Legislative Assembly.  The appellant challenged the election of the respondent who had been declared duty elected to  the State legislative Assembly from this particular constituency in the general elections to the Legislative Assembly held in March  1972.  The apellant’s principal ground  of  challenge was  that  at  the time of the scrutiny  of  the  nomination papers on February 9, 1972, the Returning Officer improperly rejected  the  nomination  paper of  one  Christian  Suleman Jivabhai  (hereinafter  to  be  described  for  brevity   as Jivabhai).  livabhai  was  not an  elector  in  the  Mahudha constituency of the Legislative Assembly.  He was an elector from Shahpur constituency in Ahmedabad city.  Along with the nomination  form Jivabhai had enclosed a certified  copy  of the  corrigeridum  to  the  Electoral  Roll  issued  by  the Registration   Officer,   who  was   officer   incharge   of preparation  of  the Electoral Rolls.   On  objection  being raised  by the respondent the nomination paper  of  Jivabhai was  rejected on the ground that the provisions  of  section 33(5)  of the Act were not complied with inasmuch as he  had not produced a certified copy of all the relevant entries in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

the  Electoral Ron before the Returning Officer at the  time of scrutiny of the nomination papers.  What was produced was only  the  certified copy of the corrigendum issued  by  the Electoral Registration Officer which showed the  correct-ion in the name of Jivabhai.  Originally, Jivabhai was shown  in the Electoral Roll as Christian Soloman Jivabhai and by  the correction  shown in the corrigendum, the name of  "Soloman" was  substituted by the name "Suleman".  The  correct  name, therefore,  stands  as "Christian Suleman  Jivabhai."  as  a result of the corrigendum.  It appears that the practice  of the  Electoral  Registration  Officer  is  not  to  issue  a corrected  Electoral  Roll  every time  some  Entry  in  the Electoral  Roll  is  amended or corrected  but  the  officer issues  corrigenda and amendment limits Without  making  any alterations in the original Electoral Roll.  The High  Court accepted the objection with regard to the non-compliance, of section 33(5) of the Act :and rejected the nomination  paper of Jivabhai. The appellant contends that that the High Court committed an error of law in rejecting the nomination,,paper. of Jivabhai in  view  of  the provisions of section 36(4)  of  the  Act. Section  33 provides for presentation of  nomination  papers and  requirements for a valid nomination.  We are  concerned in this appeal with subsection (5) of that section which may be quoted:               33    (5 ) "Where the candidate, is an elector               of  a  different constituency, a copy  of  the               electoral roll of that constitu-               455               ency  or  of  the relevant par  thereof  or  a               certified copy of the relevant entries in such               roll shall unless it has been filed along with               the  nomination paper be produced  before  the               returning officer at the time of scruitiny."               Section   36.   provides   for   scrutiny   of               nominations  and we may quote sub-section  (4)               of that section which is material.               36(4) "The returning officer shall not  reject               any  nomination  paper on the  ground  of  any               defect   which   is  not  of   a   substantial               character". In  the present ease, Jivabhai, whose nomination  paper  was rejected,  submitted along with his nomination paper only  a certified copy of the corrigendum of the particular entry in the  Electoral-Roll.   Since he was an  elector  of  another constituency  namely,  Shahpur, and was  contesting  in  the Mahudha constituency, he was required under section 33(5) to produce  ’before  the  Returning  Officer  at  the  time  of scrutiny either a copy of the Electoral Roll of Shahpur con- stituency  or  of the relevant part thereof or  a  certified copy  of  the  relevant entries in  the  Electoral  Roll  of Shahpur   constituency.   In  the  instant  case,   Jivabhai preferred  to enclose with his nomination paper a  certified copy of the corrigendum of the Electoral Roll correcting his name  therein.   It appears that neither  Jivabhai  nor  his proposer  was  present  at  the  time  of  scrutiny  of  the nomination  papers  and, therefore, no  other  document  was produced by him during scrutiny.  Even if he had not earlier enclosed  the  relevant entries of the  Electoral  Roll,  it would  have been in order if the same were  produced  before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, Section 36(7) provides as follows:               36(7)  "For  the purposes of this  section,  a               certified  copy of an entry in  the  electoral               roll  for’  the  time, being  in  force  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             constituency shall be conclusive. evidence  of               the ’fact that the person referred to in  that               entry  is  an elector for  that  constituency,                             under  it  is proved that he is  subje ct  to  a               disqualification  mentioned in sect-ion 16  of               the  Representation  of the People  Act,  1950               (4B. of. 1950)’". The  short  question that arises for consideration  in  this appeal  is  whether  the nomination paper  of  Jivabhai  was Improperly rejected’ by the Returning Officer.  A  certified copy,  which was enclosed with the nomination paper, was  as follows:- "List of voters of Shahpur ward of Gujarat State Legislative Assembly ’for the. year 1971 District  Ahmedabad, 456 City Ahmedabad, Ward, Shahpur-1, Part No. 39/84, continued. Memorandum  or List of amendment Serial Number in  Name of Voter in Present uncorrect Entry to read as Voters List             Voters List.         ed entry in the corrected      Voters List. 595                      Christian Soloman SolomanSuloman                          Jivabhai Ahmedabad      Sdl- G. B. Xhah, 28-1-1972.          Electroral Officer". Before proceeding, further it may be necessary to take  note of  ,certain  rules in the Registration of  Electors  Rules’ 1960  (briefly tre Rules).  Under rule 2(e) "  ’roll’  means the electoral roll for a- constituency".  Under rule 4  "the roll  for each constituency shall be prepared in  such  form and in such language or languages as the Election Commission may direct" Under rule 5(1), "the roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall be numbered consecutively".  By rule  10 "as soon as the roll for a constituency  is  ready, the registration officer shall publish it in draft by making a  copy  thereof available for inspection and  displaying  a notice  in  Form 5" in the places specified  in  that  rule. Rule  11  provides  for further publicity to  the  roll  and notice.  Rule 12 provides for lodging claims and objections. Rule 22 may be set out in full:               22   "Final   publication  of   roll-(1)   The               registration officer shall thereafter-               (a)   prepare,  a list of amendments to  carry               out  his decisions under rules 18, 20, 21  and               21A and correct any clerical or printing error               or    other    inaccurranicies    subsequently               discovered in the roll; and               (b)   publish the roll, together with the list               of  amendments,  by  making  a  complete  copy               thereof    available   for   inspection    and               displaying a notice in Form 16 at his office.               (2)   On  such publication, the roll  together               with  the  list  of amendments  shall  be  the               electoral roll of the constituency.               (3)    Where the roll (hereafter in this  sub-               rule referred to as the basic roll),  together               with  the  list  of  amendments,  becomes  the               electoral  roll for a constituency under  sub-               rule  (2), the Registration Officer  may,  for               the  convenience of all  concerned  ’integrate               subject to, any general or special  directions               issued  :by the Election  Commission,-.in  the               behalf,  the  list  into  the  basic  roll  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             including  the names. of electors in the  List               together  with  all  particulars  relating  to               such  electors  in the relevant parts  of  the               basic roll itself, so however that no,  change               shall   be  made  in  the  process   of   such               integration in the name of any electors or any               particulars relating, to any elector as. given               in the list, of amendments". Rule   23   provide  for appeals against  decisions  of  the Registration.  Officer under rule 20, 21  or  21A.Under,sub- rule  (4)  of that rule every, decision, of  that  appellate officer, shall be final,  but in so far 457 as  it reverses or modifies a decision of  the  registration Officer.  shall  take  effect  only from  the  date  of  the decision  in appeals".  By subrule (5)  "the-  registration. Officer  shall  cause  such amendments to  be  made  in  the roll’as may be necessary to give ’effect to the decisions of the appellate officer under this rule". Section  22 of the Representation of the People  Act.  1950. provides  for correction of entries in Electoral  Rolls  and Section  24 provides for appeals against orders  made  under sections  22 and 23 of that Act in the manner prescribed  by the Rules. From  an examination of the above material provisions it  is clear  that  the  entries  in  the  Electoral  Roll  may  be corrected  at  different stages provided under the  law  and there is also provision for appeal against decisions of  the Registration   Officer.   At  the  time  of  scrutiny,   the Returning Officer has to be satisfied about the identity  of the  candidates and will have to decide all objections  with regard  to the nomination paper.  The scrutiny will have  to be  made  by  him carefully even if there  is  no  objection raised  against  the nomination paper.  We are  required  to consider  in this, case whether Jivabhai has  complied  with section  33(5)  of the Act.Evidently he is an elector  of  a different  constituency.  That being’ the position he  could have  complied  with section 33(5) by following one  or  the other  of  the three. modes provided  in  that  sub-section, namely,  (1) he could have produced a copy of the  Electoral Roll of Shahpur constituency, or (2) he could have  produced a  copy of there levant part of the Electoral Roll  of  that constituency in which his name appears, or (3) he could have produced  a  certified copy of the relevant entries  in  the Electoral, Roll of that constituency.  He, however, selected the  third  mode  by  enclosing a  certified  copy  of  the, corrigendum to the Electoral Roll. It  is clear that the corrigendum does not furnish  all  the particulars which would be available if a certified copy  of the relevant entries in the original Electoral Roll as  well as  the  corrigendum  were pro-duced  before  the  Returning Officer  at  the  time  of  scrutiny.   Since  the  original Electoral Roll may be corrected and amended, even  sometimes by  deleting some names, it is absolutely necessary for  the satisfaction of the Returning Officer that a certified  copy of  not  only  the original Electoral  Roll  containing  the relevant  entry  as also a certified copy of  the  amendment list  concerning the candidate are produc-ed at the time  of scrutiny, if these had not already been filed along with the nomination paper. In the instant case the candidate remained satisfied by filing a certified copy of only the corrigendum which did not satisfy the Returning Officer as regards  the: identity  of the candidate.  When, therefore, the  Returning Officer  rejected  the nomination paper, the  order  can  be supported on the grounds that a certified copy of’ the entry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

in,  the original Electoral ’Rolf was, not  furnished  along with  the  certified  copy  of  the  entry  in  the  list,of amendntents.   It  cannot  , therefore,  be  said  that  the rejection of the nomination paper, under section 36(2)(b) in this case is improper.  In this connection we may 458 refer  to  a  decision  of this Court in  Sri  Baru  Ram  v. Shrimati-  Prasanni  and  others(1):,  where  an  identical. question  came up for consideration.  The following  extract from the decision will be apposite:               "Sub-section  5 of s. 33 deals with the  stage               of  the scrutiny of the nomination papers  and               it  provides  that where la  candidate  is  an               elector of a different constituency, a copy if               the electoral roll of that constituency or the               relevant  part thereof or a certified copy  of               the relevant entry of such roll shall,  unless               it  is filed along with the nomination  paper,               be  produced before the returning  officer  at               the  time of the scrutiny.  It is  thus  clear               that when the stage of scrutiny is reached the               returning officer has to be satisfied that the               candidate   is  an  elector  of  a   different               constituency and for that purpose the  statute               has  provided that mode of proof. Section  36,               sub-s. (7) lays down that the certified copies               which  are  required to be produced  under  s.               33(5)  shall  be conclusive  evidence  of  the               fact,  that  the  person referred  to  in  the               relevant   entry   is  an  elector   of   that               constituency.   In other words, the scheme  of               the  Act appears to be that where a  candidate               is  an elector of a different constituency  he               has   to  prove  that  fact  in   the   manner                             prescribed   and   the   production of   the               prescribed copy has to be taken as  conclusive               evidence  of  the  said  fact.  Section  33(5)               requires   the   candidate   to   supply   the               prescribed copy and s. 36(2) (b) provides that               on  his  failure  to  comply  with  the  said’               requirement his nomination paper is liable  to               be  rejected.  In other words, this is a  case               where  the statute requires the  candidate  to               product the prescribed evidence and provides a               penalty  for his failure to do so. in such’  a               case it is direct to appreciate the  relevance               or   validity   of  the  argument   that   the               requirement  of s. 33(5) is not mandatory  but               is  directory, because the statute itself  has               made it clear that the failure to comply with,               the said requirement leads to the rejection of               the  nomination paper.  Whenever  the  statute               requires  a  particular, act to be done  in  a               particular  manner  and also  lays  down  that               failure  to comply with the  said  requirement               leads  to a specific consequence it  would  be               difficult  to  accept the, argument  that  the               failure  to comply with.the said   requirement               should, lead:, to any other consequence There;               is  no doubt, that the,, essential  object  of               the scrutiny of nomination papers is that  the               returning Officer should be satisfied that the               candidate  who  is  not  an  elector  in   the               constituency  in  question  is,  in  fact,  an

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

             elector   of  a   different   constituency.The               satisfaction of the returning Officer thus the               matter  of substance in these proceedings; and               if  the statue provides the mode in which  the               returning officer has,               (1)   [1959] S.C.R. 1403/1418-1421.               459               to  be satisfied by the candidate it  is  that               mode which the candidate must adopt.....               The  same view was expressed by this Court  in               Narbada Prasad v. Chhagan Lal and Ors.(1)               "There  was no compliance with the  provisions               of  s.  33(5)  of the  Representation  of  the               People Act and there was no power in the court               to  dispense with this requirement.  It  is  a               well-understood rule of law that if a thing is               to  be done in a particular manner it must  be               done  in  that manner or not  at  all.   Other               modes of compliance are excluded". We  are, therefore, clearly of the view that  non-compliance with  section 33(5) is a defect of a  substantial  character and  is  not  covered  by section 36(4)  of  the  Act.   The Returning   Officer  in  this  case  rightly  rejected   the nomination  paper  of Jivabhai and the reject-in  cannot  be held to. be improper.  In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed. (1)[1969]  (1) S.C.R. 499/502. 460