The Returning Officer did number write any detailed order during scrutiny and he simply declared that the numberinations of some candidates were rejected or accepted.
45 of Shri Ram Jethmalani as seconder.
SCC 386 1992 5 JT 479 1992 2 SCALE 566 Under Article 71 of the Constitution of India The Judgment was delivered by VERMA, J. VERMA, J. Both these election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act Challenge the election of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, as the ninth President of India.
The decision of the Returning Officer recorded on petitioners numberination paper on scrutiny made on June 25, 1992 is as under This numberination paper of Shri Mithilesh Kumar at serial No.
2 of 1992 Petitioner Kaka Joginder Singh alias Dharti Pakad was one of the duly numberinated candidates at the election.
However, on scrutiny of the numberination papers made by the Returning Officer on June 25, 1992, the numberination paper of Mithilesh Kumar Sinha was rejected on the ground that it was number subscribed by at least ten electors as proposers and at least ten electors as seconders as required by Section 5 B 1 a and also that signatures of some of them were inoperative according to Section 5 B 5 being companymon in one of the numberination paper of another candidate Shri Ram Jethmalani which numberination paper was first delivered to the Returning Officer.
At the hearing also the petitioner urged the ground only under Section 18 1 c of wrongful rejection of his numberination paper Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior companynsel for the returned candidate Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma as well as the Attorney General of India companytended that the petition must be rejected under Order 39 Rules 2, 5, 7 and 34 read with Order 23 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 since it does number disclose a cause of action and is barred by the provisions of the Act Election Petition No.
45 of Shri Ram Jethmalani as seconders and as such their signatures also become inoperative on the numberination paper of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Sinha.
2 of 1992 is that even though it has been presented by a candidate at such election, yet it does number raise any triable issue inasmuch as it does number disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void on any of the permissible grounds companytained in Section 18 of the Act We shall number refer to the material facts relating to each of these election petitions Election Petition No.
This petition too is similarly clumsily drafted.
Polling was held on July 13, 1992 and result of the election was declared on July 16, 1992 at which Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma was declared elected and he was sworn in as the ninth President of India on July 25, 1992.
1 of 1992 is that it is liable to be rejected as number maintainable primarily on the ground of number being presented by a companypetent person, namely, any candidate at such election as required by Section 14 A read with Section 13 a of the Act and Order 39 Rule 7 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and alternately that it does number disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void.
There is numberword like paridatt The word delivered is related to signature and is number related to paper Issues to be decided Whether the Returning Officer has misunderstood Section 5 B 5 of PV Election Act Whether numberination of Mithilesh Kumar is valid under Section 5 E 3 c of the Act Whether Section 5 B 5 of the Act is applicable to Mithilesh Kumar Grounds from Section 18 of the Act The returned candidate respondent 3 has unduly influenced the Returning Officer for wrong decisions orders The result of the election has been materially affected by number companypliance of Section 5 E 3 D of PV Election Act The numberination of Shri G. G. Swell, Shri Ram Jethmalani, and Shri Kaka Joginder Dharatipakar were wrongly accepted Nomination of Mithilesh Kumar the petitioner was wrongly rejected Nomination of the returned candidate Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma has been wrongly accepted Prayer for relief Therefore, your Lordships are prayed for the following reliefs Please declare the election of the returned candidate as void Please declare Mithilesh Kumar as duly elected.
The Returning Officer, Presidential Election 1992 rejected numberination papers of other candidates and accepted the 4 numberination of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, Prof G.G. Swell and Shri Ram Jethmalani respondents Annexure III, illegally and unconstitutionally in spite of various objection raised by the petitioners and other candidates in spite of Annexure II without giving reasons That the petitioner claims the relief under clauses a and b of Section 16 of the grounds mentioned in Sections 18 1 2 and 19 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections, Act 31 of 1952 hereinafter called the Act The facts on which the petitioner rely in support of the grounds are stated in the next para Scrutiny of numberination papers took place on 25th June, 1992.
60 which was delivered to the Returning Officer at 12.50 p.m. on June 24, 1992 by Mithilesh Kumar himself.
The preliminary objection to the maintainability of Election Petition No.
On this basis, according to the petitioner, Section 5 B 5 was number applicable to permit rejection of the petitioners numberination paper and, therefore, the ground of wrongful rejection of his numberination paper under Section 18 1 c arises to invalidate the election.
1 of 1992, had filed his numberination paper at the election, but the same was rejected by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny due to number compliance of the mandatory requirements for a valid numberination In both these election petitions, certain preliminary objections raised on behalf of the returned candidate, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma as well as the Attorney General of India require to be decided at the threshold.
It therefore, falls short of required number of proposers.
60 has ten proposers out of which one proposer at serial No.
Similarly, Shri Prem Nath Jaiswal, Shri Saryug Mandal, Shri Raj Kumar Mahasetha, Shri Binod Kumar Roy and Shri Madhu Singh who are seconders of Shri Mithilesh Kumar have already subscribed to the numberination paper at serial No.
The remaining parts of the petition are irrelevant since the other grounds are merely mentioned without pleading any material facts to provide the requisite basis for those grounds.
On the presentation of a numberination paper, the Returning Officer shall a sign thereon a certificate stating the date and time of presentation of the numberination paper and enter thereon its serial number b inform the person or persons presenting the numberination paper of the date, time and place fixed for the scrutiny of numberinations and c cause to be affixed in some companyspicuous place in his office a companyy of the numberination paper as certified and numbered under clause a 5 E. Security of numberinations.
The petitioner also alleged that one of the signatures on his numberination paper had been erased to make it appear that there was deficiency in the required number of electors as proposer in terms of Section 5 B 1 a of the Act We may mention that many of the facts stated by us treating them as averments in support of the petition are number companytained in the petition.
1993 AIR 20 1992 1 Suppl.
SCR 651 1993 4 Suppl.
His signature is, therefore, inoperative on the present numberination paper.
1 of 1992 Petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Sinha alleges that he had obtained the signatures of twenty MLAs for companytesting the election to the office of President of India between March 30, 1992 and May 28, 1992 and had filed his numberination paper on June 24, 1992.
This in substance is the petitioners case in this election petition We may also quote some portions from the petition on which the petitioner relied to companytend that the requisite pleadings for raising a triable issue in addition to indicating the petitioners companypetence to maintain the election petition have been pleaded by him.
The numberination paper of petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Sinha bears serial No.
The petitioner has also relied on an entry in the list of dates filed by him in which he has stated as under March 30, 1992 to May 28, I obtained signatures of twenty 1992 MLAs for Presidential Election in 1992.
6 namely, Shri Jawahar Prasad Singh has number appended his signature.
The substance of the preliminary objection in Election Petition No.
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Election Petition No.
According to the petitioner, his proposers and seconders who were companymon in one of the numberination paper of Shri Ram Jethmalani has subscribed the petitioners numberination paper earlier in point of time and, therefore, delivery of Shri Ram Jethmalanis numberination paper to the Returning Officer earlier than delivery of petitioners numberination paper on June 24, 1992, did number have the effect of making the companymon signatures on the petitioners numberination paper inoperative.
Besides, Shri Surendra Sharma who is a proposer of Shri Mithilesh Kumar has already subscribed to the numberination paper at serial No.
On scrutiny of numberination papers made on June 25, 1992 by the Returning Officer, the numberination papers of only four persons, namely, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, Prof G.G. Swell, Shri Ram Jethmalani and Kaka Joginder Singh alias Dharti Pakad, were found valid and accordingly accepted.
The petitioner raised written objections against the numberinations of all the three respondents Annexure III on the following grounds That all the numberination papers are presented by one single proposer and number by 10 proposers of respondents 1 and 2.
