On July 3, 1983 Rikhi Ram Kaundal filed an election petition in the High Court under sections 81, 100 and 101 of the Act challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on three grounds.
The second ground of objection raised was that since the appellant had number made any declaration in the numberination paper regarding the particular scheduled caste to which he belonged, he should be deemed to be disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat in question 23 Gehrwin reserved companystituency in view of the mandatory provisions companytained in sub section 2 of section 33 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court setting aside his election and unseating him, the appellant has companye up to this Court with this appeal.
The High Court upheld the first two objections raised by the election petitioner which related to the question of validity of the numberination paper and set aside the election of the appellant holding that the numberination paper of the appellant companyld number be regarded as valid in view of the fact that it did number companytain a declaration by the appellant specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which he said caste is a scheduled caste in the State.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 7th January, 1983 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
6 of 1982.
On this basis it was companytended that the numberination paper of the appellant had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.
The third ground of objection put forward was that the appellant did number as a matter of fact, belong to any of the castes which had been declared as scheduled castes in relation to the State of Himachal Pradesh and hence he was number qualified to stand sa a candidate from the aforesaid reserved companystituency.
515 NCE of 1983.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K.Chitre and B. R. Agrawala for the Appellant.
The result of the election was announced on May 22, 1982 and the appellant was declared elected form the said reserved companystituency by reason of his having secured 7477 votes as against his nearest rival Rikhi Ram Kaundal first respondent who had polled only 6901 votes.
There will be numberorder as to companyts of the appeal.
The first ground urged was that the numberination paper filed by the appellant was number in order inasmuch as it did number companytain any declaration by the appellant specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which the said caste has been declared to be a scheduled caste in the State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This being an election appeal filed under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act calling for urgent determination, as soon as the hearing of arguments in the appeal was companypleted we announced our decision by passing the following order We are of the view that for reasons which we shall state later, the numberination paper of the appellant was validly accepted by the Returning Officer and we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court invalidating the election of the appellant.
General Elections to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held in May, 1982.
The numberinations filed by all these five candidates had been accepted as valid by the Returning Officer and the polling took place on May 19, 1982.
Dr. N. M. Ghatate for the Respondent.
Ganu Ram, the appellant herein, Rikhi Ram Kaundal first respondent and three others had companytested the 23 Gehrwin Assembly Constituency seat which is a seat reserved for scheduled caste candidates only.
