LALJIBHAI JODHABHAI BAR Vs. VINODCHANDRA JETHALAL PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-1963-3-2
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 28,1963

LALJIBHAI JODHABHAI BAR Appellant
VERSUS
VINODCHANDRA JETHALAL PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.T.DESAI - (1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Election Tribunal at Palanpur Banaskantha District given on the 13th October 1952 dismissing the petition filed by Laljibhai Jodhabhai Bar the appellant before us and ordering him to pay a sum of Rs. 500.00 by way of costs to Vinodchandra Jethalal Patel the respondent before us.
(2.) The appellant who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner was an elector in the Deesa Legislative Assembly Constituency of Gujarat when the last general election was held in the month of February 1962. The respondent was a candidate who had stood for election from the said constituency. On 20th January 1962 nomination papers were filed propos- ing the respondent as a candidate for the election. There were also filed four nomination papers proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. There were also other nomination papers filed proposing the names of other candidates for the purpose of election. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was held. On 23rd January 1962 objections were heard and after hearing the objections the Returning Officer rejected the four nomination papers which had been filed proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. The decision of the Returning Officer is exhibited in the case as an accompaniment to Exhibit 81. In giving his decision the Returning Officer has observed as follows : On scrutiny of the nomination papers it is seen that the proposers in all the four nomination papers have put the mark of their thumb impression and were presented to the Returning officer by the candidate himself. There was no proposer present at the time of the presentation of the nomination papers in the office room of the Returning Officer. As this has not been done at the time of presentation I could not satisfy myself as regard the identity of the proposers as required under rule 2(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 ... ...
(3.) The attestation by the Returning Officer is necessary requirement of the rule which in this case has not been done and so it is a defect of a substantial nature invalidating the nomination papers... ... ... The nomination papers ... ... are therefore rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.