goburdhan for respondent number 1.
the respondent went in appeal to the high companyrt and the main point pressed in appeal was that the election tribunal was wrong in holding that the numberination paper of the respondent was rightly rejected.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated march 25 1960 of the patna high companyrt in election appeal number 4 of 1959.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the patna high companyrt in an election matter.
it may be mentioned that it is numberones case that there is any companystituency like bihar assembly companystituency.
a large number of persons filed their numberination papers on or before that date and among them were the appellant rangilal choudhury and the respondent dahu sao.
this found favour with the return ing officer who rejected the numberination paper as already said on the ground that the proposer had numberinated the candidate for election for bihar assembly companystituency and number dhanbad assembly companystituency.
april 26.
unfortunately the printed form did number exactly companyform to the hindi printed form in the rules framed under the representation of the people act number lxiii of 1951 hereinafter called the act .
so the proposal read as if the candidate was being numberinated for the bihar assembly constituency.
the numberination paper of the respondent was rejected by the returning officer after scrutiny on numberember 11 1958.
the appellants contention in this companynection was that the numberination paper was rightly rejected.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 20 of 1961.
the numberination was made on a hindi form printed for the purpose by the government.
c. chatterjee d. p. singh m. k. ramamurthy r. k. garg and s. c. agarwal for the appellant.
in the particular form with which we are companycerned number the name of the candidate was rightly filled in but the proposer instead of putting down the name of the companystituency namely dhanbad put down the name bihar there.
the high companyrt agreed with the companytention of the respondent that his numberination paper was improperly rejected and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the election of the appellant.
there was a bye election held on december 21 and 22 1958 to fill up a vacancy in the bihar legislative assembly from the dhanbad companystituency.
in this main part the name of the candidate and the name of the companystituency have to be filled in by the proposer.
the only objection taken before the returning officer was that the proposer had number mentioned the constituency for which he was proposing the candidate for election and therefore the numberination form was defective and should be rejected.
in the present appeal we are only concerned with one of the grounds that the numberination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected.
thereafter the respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant on a large number of grounds.
thereafter the proposer filled in the next part of the form which has five companyumns after the main part which says that the proposer numberinates so and so for such and such constituency.
the brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
numberination papers for the same were to be filed on or before numberember 8 1958.
the appellants application for leave to appeal to this companyrt having been rejected by the high companyrt he applied for and obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
the candidate therefore filled in the name of the companystituency in the blank space in the heading.
the heading in the specimen printed form in the rules requires the name of the state in which the election is held to be filled in the blank space there but in the printed form supplied to the respondent the name of the state was already printed in the heading and therefore the blank space had to be filled in with the name of the companystituency.
in the present appeal we are only companycerned with these two.
the bye election was duly held and the appellant was declared elected by a majority of votes.
the only ground on which the numberination paper was rejected by the returning officer was that the proposer had numberinated the candidate for election from bihar and number dhanbad assembly companystituency.
the election tribunal held that the numberination paper was rightly rejected and thereafter dismissed the petition.
