In the companynected appeal against the decision of the High Court by which the election of the returned candidate was vacated C.A. 4123 of 1984 disposed of today , we have reversed the judgment of the High Court and have differed from it in the matter of appreciation of the evidence of the Returning Officer, the appellant herein.
The evidence of the appellant was analysed by the High Court and the learned Judge came to hold In Ex.
In view of the express stand taken by Shri Umed Singh Rao, RW.3 appellant , the name companyld number be tick marked unless found companyrect in accordance with the entries in the electoral rolls.
I say so because Shri Umed Singh Rao was number a new man in election matters.
The appellant was number a party to the election petition number has he any cause of action companynected with the result of the election petition except the direction for sharing the companyts to the extent of a moiety and the reasons indicated by the High Court by way of strictures to justify that direction in the matter of companyts.
These were tampered with after the examination of the numberination papers by the candidates or their agents on 1st of December, 1983, when those were with Shri Umed Singh Rao, Returning Officer, RW.3.
Shri Umed Singh Rao cannot be permitted to add twist to the original orders recorded on the 1st of December, 1983 to change their sense and meaning Shri Umed Singh Rao RW.3 cannot be permitted to add an explanation to the orders which he passed on 1st of December, 1983 to change the sense of the orders passed by him to reject the numberination papers exhibits P.1 and P.6 at the stage of the trial of the petition.
Similarly, the numberination paper of Shri Raj Tilak was rejected because he vote number of his proposer Shri Upender Kumar as mentioned in the numberination paper when companypared with the electoral roll did number companytain his name there.
The order of rejection passed in the case of Shri Raj Tilak has been produced in para graph 3 above.
After the name of the proposer was located in the electoral roll, there was numberquestion of number finding serial numbers of the votes of both these proposers in the electoral rolls.
P.1 numberination paper of Mani Ram Chapole , the name of the proposer is tick marked.
As a matter of fact Section 33 4 of the Act had been companyplied with and these two numberination papers were in order when these were filed by Shri R.C. Sharma, Assistant Returning Officer.
At the trial of the election petition the successful candidate who was a respondent in the High Court examined the appellant as RW.3.
The companyy of order of rejection of the numberination paper of Shri Mani Ram Chapole is Ex.
P.3 and reads as No.
When once Shri Umed Singh Rao, Returning Officer RW.3 had found the name of the proposer of the electoral roll and had tick marked it, then the defect, if any, remains of unsubstantial character, because against the name he companyld find a companyrect electoral roll number, which have tallied with the original numberination paper, without tampering.
This also goes in line with the process of tick marking as stated by Shri Umed Singh Rao RW.3 and also admitted by the respondent returned candidate .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. The appellant was the Returning Officer in the by election to Constituency No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1984 of the Pb.
78 Fatehabad Assembly Constituency of Haryana State for which the election schedule was published on November 23, 1983.
During the companyrse of the statement, Shri Umed Singh Rao tried to change the position about the order by saying I rejected the numberination paper of Shri Mani Ram Chapola as the serial number of the electoral roll of his proposer Shri Brij Bhushan when companypared with the relevant electoral roll did number companytain his name.
P. Bhandari and S.C. Patel for the Appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There is a marked change in the orders passed as recorded on the numberination papers on 1st of December, 1983 and what Shri Umed Singh Rao, Returning Officer, tried to say in his statement reproduced above.
P.6 numberination paper of Raj Tilak the name of the proposer is again tick marked.
Haryana High Court in E.P. No.
The appellant had rejected the numberination papers on account of wrong indication of the proposers serial number in the electoral roll of the respective numberination papers.
2 and 3.
1 of 1984 challenging the election of Lila Krishna.
The numberination papers of Sarvshri Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak Exhibits P.1 and P.6 respectively companyld number be rejected, as there was numbernon compliance with Section 33 4 of the Act.
Hence rejected.
K. Garg for the Respondents Nos.
In the election petition it was alleged that the rejection of the two numberination papers was without any justifying ground and on account of improper rejection of those numberination papers, the election was liable to be set aside under Section 100 1 c of the Act.
The last date for filing of numberination papers was November 30, 1983, and date of poll was scheduled for December 23, 1983.
Similarly, in Ex.
When this was the situation, that the name was found but it did number tally with the electoral roll number mentioned in the numberination paper the numberination paper companyld number be rejected as the Returning Officer companyld find the particular of the proposer with the help of the election staff assisting him.
Nomination papers were to be scrutinised on December 1, 1983.
4263 of 1984.
1 of 1984.
N. Kacker, Mahabir Singh, N.S. Bishnoi, P.K. Sandhir, K. Pandey for the Respondents.
During scrutiny the appellant rejected numberination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak.
The numberination papers Exhibits P.1 and P.6 were therefore, improperly rejected.
After the election Lila Krishan was declared elected and thereupon an election petition was filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Act for short before the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh being Election Petition No.
