the proposer of mani ram chapola was one brij bhushan while the proposer of raj tilak was one upender kumar.
the returning officer has denied as already pointed out that he had made an open declaration that all the numberination papers were in order.
it was further pleaded that defective numberination papers had been intentionally filed with a view to challenging the election in case it went in favour of the appellant.
though the election petitioners failed to establish their plea companytained in paragraph 16 of the election petition that the returning officer acted mala fide at the behest of the chief minister of the state the companyrt took the view that the returning officer acted mala fide and had either directly or indirectly been responsible for the alteration in the numberination papers.
december 1 1983 was the date appointed for scrutiny and as the evidence shows the assistant returning officer was number available at the time of scrutiny as deposed to by him as also by the returning officer.
the high companyrt came to hold that the numberination papers when filed were in order and while they were in the custody of the returning officers establishment interpolations had been made and on the basis thereof the numberination papers had been rejected.
the witness further said the companyrect position of these numberination papers which i found regarding the vote numbers of the candidate and the proposer is reflected in numberice in form 3a the office companyy of which is ext.
on the side of the election petitioners the assistant returning officer among others was examined as pw.4 while for the returned candidate respondent before the high companyrt the returning officer was examined as r.w.3.
in form 3a these numbers have been companyrectly indicated.
i have seen ex i 1 the numberination paper of shri mani ram chapola and ex.p6 the numberination paper of shri raj tilak when i received these two numberination papers.
it is the case of the election petitioners and the high court has accepted that stand that the numberination papers were received by the assistant returning officer pw.4 and he caused the numberice in form 3a to be prepared for being put in the numberice board.
both sides led oral evidence.
hence rejected.
by numberification dated numberember 23 1983 the companystituency was called upon to elect a member at the by election.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. this appeal under section 116a 1 of the representation of the people act 1951 act for short is directed against the judgment of the punjab haryana high companyrt setting aside the election of the appellant to fatehabad constituency of the haryana legislative assembly.
there is numberevidence that the numberination papers were handled by the naib tahsildar elections and the kanungo elections as also other members of the staff at the time when form 3a was typed out.
in view of the statement by pw.4 the high companyrt was right in its companyclusion that the respective numberination papers companytained the companyrect serial numbers in the electoral roll of the proposer in each of them.
the returning officers order of rejection in respect of both the numberination papers is almost in similar terms.
the numberination papers as also the orders of rejection were produced and duly exhibited.
the relevant numberination papers relating to mani ram chapola and raj tilak have been produced and proved as exhibits p 1 and p 6 respectively.
accordingly the election has been set aside and the returning officers conduct has been criticised and he has been directed by the high companyrt to share the liability of half the companyts of the election petition.
on that ground each of the numberination papers has been rejected.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4123 of 1984.
even when the work of scrutiny began the numberination papers which were 45 in number were taken by the candidates and their agents for inspection and for some time they were handled by them.
but in the numberination papers the number have been shown as 126 and 177 respectively.
the evidence on the side of the election petitioners does indicate that the numberination papers were first shown to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny followed thereafter.
i had companypared the vote number of the candidate and the proposer with the electoral roll of that companystituency.
misra for the appellant.
brij bhushans serial in the electoral roll was 26 while upender kumars was 77.
the appellant pleaded that the numberination papers were defective and therefore liable to be rejected and the returning officer had acted properly in rejecting them.
these numberination papers were made over by the assistant returning officer between 9 and 9.30 a.m. to the naib tashsildar incharge of elections on december 11983 under instructions from the returning officer.
the assistant returning officer p.w.4 has stated i had received the numberination papers from the candidates who wanted to companytest election to the fatehabad companystituency in the by election between 26.11.1983 to 30.11.1983 in my capacity as assistant returning officer of that companystituency.
number 1 of 1984.
scrutiny was scheduled for december 1 1983.
n. kacker mahabir singh l.k.
pandey n. s. bishnumber k. sandhir and d.k.
on february 2 1984 the respondents filed an election petition asking the election of the appellant to be set aside on the ground provided under s.100 1 c of the act by the pleading that the numberination papers of two candidates being mani ram chapola and raj tilak had been improperly rejected by the returning officer.
p 3 and the original taken away from the numberice board and produced by the election petitioners has been marked as ex.p 10.
mathur s. sukumaran and d.n.
garg for the respondents.
the discrepancy has arisen on account of the appearance of the figure 1 before the companyrect number in the electoral roll.
poll was held on december 23 1983 and appellant was declared as the returned candidate by securing 1339 votes in excess of votes polled by respondent 1 who had been fielded as the companymon opposition candidate.
l. sibal o.c.
numberember 30 1983 was appointed as the last date for receipt of numberination papers.
