8 Kishan Lal accepted by the Returning Officer and it so, whether the Returning Officer had the power of reviewing his order?
Prima facie this goes to support the case of the petitioner, but in companyss examination Kishan Lal stated At the time when the numberination papers were being scrutinised by the Returning Officer, an objection was raised when he was writing the order.
On the pleadings the learned trial Judge framed four issues Is.
8 Kishan Lal a Hindi Chamar by caste which is a scheduled caste within the meaning of Part X of the Schedule to the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950?
He said The Returning Officer had number announced that he had accepted the numberination papers of Kishan Lal but had written the word accepted.
Kishan Lal who came to give evidence in this case in support of the petition stated in his examination in chief that At the time of the scrutiny of the numberination papers for elections in 1967 the Returning Officer at first announced orders on my numberination papers accepting the same.
P. Bhandari and Harder Singh, for the appellants.
Is Chamar or Mochi one and the same caste and a scheduled caste within the meaning of Part X of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950?
The learned Judge did number accept that a finalised order had been reviewed.
The manner of recording the order is suggestive of the above.
The petitioners case was that Chamar and mochi were number two separate castes and the word mochi was applied to a chamar who actually started working in lwather.
There were eight candidates, the first respondent being the returned candidate.
Unfortunately, however, for the petitioner, the Returning Officer, although he appeared in companyrt to produce some documents, was number orally examined and we are therefore without his testimony on the subject.
On this evidence, it is number possible to hold that the Returning Officer had announced his decision accepting the numberination paper, but had reviewed his own order afterwards on objection being raised and let in evidence on the next day and rejected the numberination paper.
The said item reads as follows Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigar, Ramdasi or Ravidasi.
341 of the Constitution he had filed a declaration under s. 33 2 of the Representation of the People Act, stating his caste to be chamar companyered by item 9 in Part X Punjab of the Schedule to the Order.
Has the numberination paper of respondent No.
Was the numberination paper or respondent No.
It appears that the Returning Officer at first wrote the word accepted and gave the date as 21 1 1967 to the left of his signature the endorsement rejecting the numberination paper is by way of a post script abbreviated as P.S. the last two lines curving over the signature.
This is strengthened by the evidence of Shiv Chand R.W. 7.
8 Kishan Lal been wrongly rejected?
1 Shiv Chand.
According to the petitioner, Kishan Lal was a Hindu and being a Chamar by caste he belonged to a scheduled caste within the meaning of paragraph 2 read with Part X of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order 1950 issued under Art.
The petitioner challenged the election to the Lambi Assembly Constituency reserved seat in the district of Ferozepore.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was stated in the petition that the Returning Officer had at first accepted the numberination paper of Kishan Lal on 21st January 1967, but subsequently, on an objection having been raised by the first respondent on the ground that Kishan Lal was number a member of a Scheduled Caste, the proceedings were adjourned till the next day when after admitting evidence, the same was rejected on the plea that Kishan Lal was a mochi by caste.
The petition was filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates impleading the other seven candidates, and Kishan Lal whose numberination paper was rejected.
Thereafter the Returning Officer adjourned the matter to the next date on which after examining evidence led by the parties he rejected the numberination papers.
The point canvassed before him with a good deal of force was that the Returning Officer had sought to review his own order passed on 21st January 1967 accepting the numberination paper and this, he was number companypetent to do.
An examination of the document tends to support the appellants argument about the numberination paper having been accepted at first but rejected subsequently.
Then an objection was raised by respondent No.
This I know because I was sitting next to him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. In the election petition out of which the present appeal arises, the main question canvassed was, whether the numberination paper of respondent No.
1869 1967.
If so, is the election of the returned candidate void?
respondent No.
2 before this Court was wrongly rejected.
8 appellant No.
L. Lakhanpal and D.D. Sharma, for respondent No.
It is admitted that if the rejection was wrong, the election cannot stand.
1000 This nullifies the effect of the statement in the examination inchief and suggests that this objection was raised before the order had been signed or announced.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated October 24, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 14 of 1967.
