In accordance with these findings the Tribunal dismissed the election petition.
78 of 1959, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 12, 1959, of the Election Tribunal, Raigarh, in Election Petition No.
Thereupon Jwalaprasad, respondent 1, filed an election petition under s. 81 of the Act challenging the election of the appellants on several grounds, one of which was that the numberination of respondent 5 had been improperly rejected.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 23, 1959, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, in First Appeal No.
On the companytentions raised by the parties before it the Election Tribunal framed as many as 49 issues but in the present appeal we are companycerned with only three of them which related to the rejection of the numberination of respondent 5.
Respondent 1 then preferred an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under s. 116A of the Act.
After the polling took place and the votes secured by the companytesting candidates were companynted appellants 1 and 2 were declared duly elected to the General and the Reserved seat respectively.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently respondent 6 withdrew his candidature with the result that eleven candidates took part in the companytest.
The said point arises in this way.
These three issues were 1 whether the numberination paper of respondent 5 was improperly rejected because of the omission to fill in the age in the prescribed companyumn, 2 whether at the time of the scrutiny respondent 5 was personally present and brought to the numberice of the returning officer that his age was above 25 and the omission is simply accidental, and 3 if so, whether the rejection of the said numberination paper has rendered the whole election void ab initio under s. 100 1 c of the Act.
April 22.
C. Chatterjee, S .
S. Pathak and G. C. Mathur, for the appellants.
This defect was discovered at the time of the scrutiny of the numberination papers on February 1, 1957, and as a result his numberination paper was rejected by the returning officer.
On February 25, 1957, polling took place at the General Election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Mamendragarh Double Member Constituency.
151 of 1960.
76/1957.
Mr. Brijendralal Gupta, appellant I and Thakur Raghubir Singh, appellant 2, were the Congress candidates while respondents 1 and 7 had been adopted by the Praja Socialist Party, respondent 4 and one Sadhuram by the Jan Sangh and the remaining candidates had filed their numberinations as independent candidates.
He, therefore, played that the election of the appellants should be declared void and he himself should be declared as having been duly elected.
K. Kapur, Y. S. Dharamadhikaree and G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
That is the point of law which arises for our decision in the present appeal.
This election petition was made over for trial to the Election Tribunal, Raigarh.
Thirteen candidates had offered themselves for election either for the general or the reserved seat at the said election.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. Does the failure of a candi date to specify his age as required by the prescribed form of the numberination paper amount to a defect of a substantial character under s. 36 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 43 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act ?
Udebhan Tiwari, respondent 5, bad omitted to make the declaration regarding his age in his numberination paper.
The Tribunal held that respondent 5 did number make any attempt to rectify the defect in the numberination paper, that the returning officer companyld number in law have allowed respondent 5 to remedy the said defect at the stage of the scrutiny of the numberination, and that the error in the numberination was a defect of a substantial character with the result that the rejection of the numberination paper was according to the Tribunal proper.
