text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
What are, however, to be emphasised at this stage are section 21 of the 1950 Act which provides that on the preparation of an electoral roll in the prescribed manner it will come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under the 1950 Act (vide sub section (1) of the 1950 Act)... |
In order to implement the provisions contained in Part III of the 1950 Act relating to the preparation and revision of electoral rolls rules have been made under the 1950 Act and they are the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules '). Ratio |
The rules prescribing the procedure for preparation and revision of electoral rolls are contained in Part II of the Rules. Ratio |
The electoral registration officer of a constituency which expression includes an assistant electoral registration officer thereof also is charged with the duties of the preparation, revision and maintenance of an electoral roll. Ratio |
After the electoral roll is prepared under the Rules and published it can be amended in accordance with the decisions of the electoral registration officer under rules 18, 20, 21 and 21 A of the rules. Ratio |
Rule 22 of the Rules provides thus: "22.Final publication of roll. (1) The registration officer shall thereafter (a) Prepare a list of amendments to carry out his decisions under rules 18, 20, 21 and 21A and to correct any clerical or printing errors or other inaccuracies subsequently discovered in the roll; (b) publis... |
(2) On such publication, the roll together with the list of amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency. STA |
(3) Where the roll (hereafter in this sub rule referred to as the basic roll), together with the list of amendments, becomes the electoral roll for a constituency under sub rule (2), the registration officer may, for the convenience of all concerned, integrate, subject to any general or special directions issued by the... |
" In the present case there was a basic roll prepared prior to 31.1.1984 in the Shivaji Nagar Assembly Constituency. Ratio |
The name of the appellant was entered at Sl.No. 16 of a supplement which was published on 31.1.1984. Ratio |
It appears there were two more supplements issued subsequently, i.e., one on 27.11.1984 and the other on 29.1.1985. Ratio |
The basic roll and the supplement in which the name of the appellant was found was again published on 29.1.1985. Ratio |
The basic roll and supplements together constituted one integrated electoral roll. Ratio |
The certified copy, which was furnished to the appellant on 8.1.1986, i.e., one day before the date on which he filed his nomination paper was a copy made from the said integrated electoral roll. Ratio |
The said certified copy was marked as exhibit B 1 in the case and the certified copy which was furnished to him on 10.1.1986 was marked as exhibit B. The Electoral Registration Officer who was responsible for preparation and maintenance of the rolls, as already stated, was the Tahsildar, Pune. Ratio |
He was examined by the appellant as one of his witnesses in the case. Ratio |
We feel that it is necessary to refer to some portions of the deposition of the Tahsildar, i.e., the Electoral Registration Officer. Ratio |
He stated: "The petitioner was furnished the extract (Exh. B 1).B l is the extract from the electoral list as was current on the date this extract was given to him. Ratio |
I see Exh.D which is the certified copy of extract furnished to the petitioner on 10.1.86. Ratio |
These two extracts are identical except that the final publication date as stated in Exh. B 1 is 31.1.84 and 19.1.85 in Exh. Ratio |
In 1985 the entire list of voters was not again got printed. Ratio |
The date of final publication (29.1.85) as finding place in Exh.D is brought to my notice. Ratio |
On 29.1.85 it was the supplement along with the original list that was published. Ratio |
PG NO 1075 Three suplements were published on the following dates first on 31.1.84 the second on 27.11.1984 and the third on 29.1.1985. Ratio |
B 1 was furnished to the petitioner by me on 8.1.86 after taking into consideration the publication of these supplements also. Ratio |
So also Exh. D. Cross examination by R 3 and 4 declined. Ratio |
Cross examination by Shri Vyas for R. 5: It is correct that the voters list was finally published on 29.1.85, I am referring to Shivaji Nagar Constituency voters list. Ratio |
It is not true that on the extract Exh.B 1 I put the date of final publication on 31.1.84, because I did not take into consideration the later publication of 27.11.84 and 29.1.85 . . " (emphasis added) From the deposition of the Tahsildar (Electoral Registration Officer) the following points emerge: (i) exhibit B 1, th... |
(ii) In 1985 the entire electoral roll was not again got printed. FAC |
(iii) The certified copy which was produced along with the nomination paper was furnished to the appellant on 8.1.1986 after taking into consideration the publication of the supplements on 31.1.1984.27.11.1984 and 29.1.1985. FAC |
(iv) The basic roll along with the supplement or supplements was published on 31.1.1984 and also on 29.1.1985. FAC |
In answer to a question put in the cross examination by the learned counsel for the Returning Officer, the Electoral Registration Officer stated that it was correct that the voters list was finally published on 29.1.1985. FAC |
He also stated that it was not true that on the extract exhibit B 1 he put the date of final publication as 31.1.1984 because he did not take into consideration the later publications of 27.11.1984 and of 29.1.1985. FAC |
PG NO 1076 The appellant, who was a citizen of India and was registered as a voter applied to the Electoral Registration Officer of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly Constituency bona fide for a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll containing his name for purposes of producing it before the Returning Off... |
A certified copy was accordingly prepared by the officer concerned and it no doubt stated that the supplement in which the appellant 's name appeared had been last published on 31.1.1984. Ratio |
It did not say that it was not published subsequently. Ratio |
But, on the other hand in the evidence of the Electoral Registration Officer it is stated that even on 29 1.1985 both the original electoral roll and the supplements had been published. Ratio |
It is not the case of any party that there was another electoral roll which was defunct from which the certified copy produced by the appellant along with the nomination paper had been prepared. Ratio |
There was only one electoral roll in the office of the Electoral Registration Officer of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly Constituency. Ratio |
It consisted of the basic roll and the three supplements. Ratio |
The name of the appellant as already stated was in the first supplement which had been published on 31.1.1984 for the first time. Ratio |
There is also no evidence in this case showing that the name of the appellant had been deleted from the electoral roll subsequently on account of any disqualification incurred by him as provide by section 16 of the 1950 Act. Ratio |
We have not been informed that there is any prescribed form in which a certified copy of the entries in the electoral roll should be furnished when an application is made for such certified copy for purposes of section 33(5) of the 1951 Act. Ratio |
There is no prescription requiring the copy to state the several dates on which the basic roll or the supplement from which the copy is prepared had been published. Ratio |
The certified copy that was produced before the Returning Officer along with the nomination paper was less than 24 hours old when it was presented before the Returning Officer. Ratio |
It is not a certified copy obtained in 1984 that was being produced in 1986 before the Returning Officer. Ratio |
No candidate had raised any objection to the nomination paper of the appellant. Ratio |
The objection, however had been raised by the Returning Officer himself on the 9th January, 1986 when the appellant filed his nomination paper along with the certified copy which he had obtained on 8.1.1986. Ratio |
As a subsequence of the said objection he had to rush back to Pune again to obtain another certified copy. Ratio |
He appeared before the Returning Officer again by about 1.00 P.M. on the date of the scrutiny and produced the other certified copy. Ratio |
PG NO 1077 The Returning Officer, who commenced the scrutiny of the nomination paper at 11 A.M. on 11.1.1986 proceeded to reject the nomination paper of the appellant on the ground that the certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll could not be treated as a certified copy of an electoral roll which was... |
Under the proviso to section 36(5) of the 1951 Act it is provided that in case an objection is raised by the Returning Officer or is made by any other person the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the Returning Officer shall... |
The Returning Officer did not choose to wait even for a few hours on 11.1.1986 to give a chance to the appellant to make his plea that what had been produced before him along with the nomination paper was a certified copy which could be acted upon or to produce another certified copy which in fact he did produce at 1 P... |
namely, that there was a revision in 1985 and that the certified copy which had been produced was from an electoral roll which had become defunct. Ratio |
If that was so he should have secured the necessary material from the concerned Electoral Registration Officer and placed it before the appellant before rejecting the nomination paper. Ratio |
It is no doubt true that the electoral right is a statutory right and a person who wishes to contest an election should comply with the law applicable to elections strictly. Ratio |
But in the instant case we that there is no default at all on the part of the appellant. Ratio |
He had actually produced before the Returning Officer a certified copy which had obtained within less than 24 hourse from the Election Registration Officer of the constituency where he was residing and that he had not done anything to mislead the Returning Officer. Ratio |
Unless the certified copy produced before the Returning Officer itself on the face of it showed that the electoral roll from which a certified copy had been prepared had been substituted by another electoral roll. Ratio |
the Returning Officer was not justified in not treating the production of the certified copy prepared on 8.1.1986 as sufficient compliance under section 33(5) of the 195l Act particularly having regard to the close proximity between the date of preparation of the certified copy and the date of the production of the cer... |
In the circumstances unless there was any evidence to the contrary the Returning Officer should have treated the certified copy PG NO 1078 produced before him as a certified copy of the electoral roll for the time being in force of the constituency to which it related. Ratio |
It is clear from the evidence of the Tahsildar that there was no other roll which had taken the place of the supplement in which the name of the appellant had been entered. Ratio |
Even the second copy supplied on 10.1.1986 had been prepared from the same supplement. Ratio |
Both the first certified copy and the second certified copy were copies of the same original. Ratio |
Sub section (7) of section 36 of the 1951 Act lays down a rule of evidence. Ratio |
It says that a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section 16 of th... |
In the absence of any such objection on the part of any other candidate or any information which the Returning Officer may have had with regard to the disqualification of the appellant, the Returning Officer should have in the circumstances of this case proceeded to accept the certified copy produced along with the nom... |
We hold that the certified copy produced along with the nomination paper satisfied the requirement of section 33(5) of 1951 Act. Ratio |
We are of the view that in the circumstances the appellant who was an innocent person has been denied the right to contest the election unreasonably. Ratio |
We hold that the rejection of the nomination paper of the appellant was improper. Ratio |
It follows that the election of the 1st respondent should be declared void in view of the provisions contained in section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act. Ratio |
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the 1st respondent to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Jaoli constituency void. RPC |
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the parties must be directed to bear their own costs both in the High Court and in this Court. RPC |
R.S.S. Appeal allowed. RPC |
ivil Appeal Nos. 165166 of 1989. FAC |
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1986 of the Allahabad 183 High Court in W.P. Nos.6819 of 1985 and 367 of 1986. FAC |
Civil Appeal Nos.167 to 171 of 1989. FAC |
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos.3463, 367 of 1986, 5521, 5699 and 6819 of 1985. FAC |
Yogeshwar Prasad, D.D. Thakur, Soli J. Sorabjee and S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Lal, Umesh Chandra, Kri shan Chandra, R.K. Mehta, R.C. Verma, Dr. Roxma Swamy, Dilip Tandon, Harish N. Salve, Rajiv Shakdher for the appearing parties. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. FAC |
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) 4761 and 4762 of 1985 are by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers and SLPs 13298 and 11498 of 1987 by the Lucknow Development Authority, (LDA for short) a statutory body constituted under Sec. 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 (Act for short) and its... |
Seeking special leave to appeal from the common judgment dated 8.12 1986 of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Writ Petition Nos. 68 19 of 1985 and 367 of 1986 which were heard and decided along with three other writ petitions i.e. WP 5521 & 5699 of 1985 and 3463 of 1986. FAC |
Special leave petitions 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 are by the LDA and its Authorities directed against the said common judgment dated 8.12.1986 in so far as it per tains respectively to W.P. 5699 of 1985 and 5521 of 1985. FAC |
Special leave petition 11220 of 1987 is by the LDA and its Authorities seeking leave to appeal from the Order in W.P. 3463 of 1986. FAC |
The Writ petitions before the High Court were pre ferred by the Respondent Lessees Sri D.P. Singh and his mother Smt.Raj Lakshmi Devi, the heirs of Maharaja Patesh wari Prasad Singh in respect of Nazool land in Plot No. 10, Ashok Marg, Hasratganj, Lucknow, under deed dated 7.10.1961 commencing from 15.11.1961 and state... |
The proceedings arose out of two matters. FAC |
The first pertained to the legality of the Notice dated 19.11.1985 issued by the State Government in cancelling the lease. FAC |
The cancella 184 tion was challenged in two writ petitions filed separately by Sri D.P. Singh and Smt.Raj Lakshmi Devi in W.P. 6819 of 1985 and WP 367 of 1986 respectively. FAC |
The High Court by its common order dated 8.12.1986 allowing the said two writ petitions quashed the said cancellation. FAC |
In SLPs 4761 and 4762 of 1987 and in SLPs 13298 and 11498 of 1987 the Lucknow Development Authority have assailed this part of the common order. FAC |
The second area of the controversy arises out of the order dated 19.4.1986 of the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Develop ment Authority, (LDA for short) cancelling the earlier order dated 31.1.1985 granting permission under Sec.15 of the Act in favour of the Respondent Lessees to develop the lease hold property by effecting th... |
This cancellation was challenged by the two Lessees in the joint writ petition No 3463 of 1986. FAC |
The High Court allowed this WritPetition also and has quashed the impugned order dated 19.4.1986 by which the permission to build earlier granted was sought to be revoked. RLC |
In SLP 11220 of 1987 the LDA seeks leave to appeal against this part of the order WPs 5699 of 1985 and 5521 of 1985 from which the LDA has preferred SLP 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 respectively do not relate to or bear upon the substantial points of controversy between the parties. FAC |
They relate to certain incidental matters. FAC |
Accordingly SLPs 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 would be governed by the order made in the main SLPs. FAC |
Special leave is granted in all the petitions. FAC |
We have heard Sri D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the LDA and its authorities; Sri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and its offi cers and Sri Soli J. Sorabjee for the respondentLessees. Ratio |
The subject matter of the lease is stated to be an extent of about 9885 Sq.Metres of Nazool land, which was comprised in the lease in favour of a certain Mr. Edwards, granted in the year 1901 for a period of 30 years in the first instance, with provision for renewal for two more terms of 30 years each. FAC |
On 6.11.1936, there was the first renewal for 30 years effective from 1.4.1931 in favour of a certain Sri Syed Ali Zahir, a transferee from Mr. Edwards. FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.