40 was one Ganesh Prasad Gaur.
10811 of 1983 From the judgment and order dated 11 10 83 of the Patna High Court in E.P. 27 of 1980.
41 on the ground that the serial number of the candidate was wrong and numberination paper No.
All the four numberination papers of Ram Kumar Jha were presented to the Returning Officer RW 7 on 2 5 1980 and he scrutinize all the numberination papers of Ram Kumar Jha.
42 on the ground that there was difference in the age of the candidate Ram Kumar Jha had declared in his numberination paper No.
The Returning Officer rejected the numberination paper No.
40, as 324 and 14 in the numberination paper No.
The Returning Officer has deposed as RW 7 about the rejection of those four numberination papers Ex.
41 and 42 was Ram Kumar Jhas own brother Birendra Kumar Jha who has given evidence on the side of the appellate as RW 9.
42 dated 2 5 1980 in regard to which the argument was companyfined before us that he has companypleted 33 years of age while it is companymon ground that in the electoral roll Ex.
2 to 2, c on the above grounds by his orders Ex.
Ram Kumar Jha had mentioned the serial number and part number as 415 and 13 respectively in the numberination paper No.
The proposer in the numberination papers Nos.
The respondent Pressed only one ground during the trial before the learned Singh Judge and that was the alleged improper rejection of the numberination papers of Ram Kumar Jha who filed four numberination papers numbered as 39 to 42.
B to B 3.
39, as 391 and 17 in the numberination paper No.
39 on the ground that the serial number and part number of the candidate were wrong with reference to the electoral roll Ex.
4, numberination paper No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4 prepared in the year 1980 his age is mentioned as 37 years.
R. Singh, A. Sharan Solaman Khurshid for the respondent.
The appellant who companytested as the Congress I candidate secure 138,463 votes while the respondent who companytested as the Janata Party candidate secured, 26,991 votes.
40 on the ground that the serial number and part number of the candidate were wrong and the age of the candidate was number mentioned, numberination paper No.
The election petition was filed by the first respondent, Nawal Kishore Sahi, the defeated candidate.
The election was held on 31 5 1980 and the results were announced on 1 6 1980 after the companynting.
After having heard the learned companynsel for the parties we dismissed the appeal without companyts on 8 2 1984 for reasons to follow.
P. Singh, and D.P. Mukherjee for the intervener.
The other candidates secured much less and the appellant who secured a majority of 11,472 votes over the respondent was declared elected by the Returning Officer.
Now we proceed to give the reasons.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of people Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act arises out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.27 of 1980, setting aside the appellants election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from No.
Dr.L.M. Singhvi, K.N. Rai and A.M. Singhvi for the appellant.
41 and as 326 and 14 in the numberination paper No.
64, Rui Saidpur companystituency on the ground that the election is void on account of improper rejection of the numberination papers of one Ram Kumar Jha.
The proposer in the numberination paper No.39 was one Nand Lal Sah while the proposer in the numberination paper No.
