P N BALASUBRAHMANYAN Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL OF NORTH ARCOT AT VELLORE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
ELECTION TRIBUNAL OF NORTH ARCOT AT VELLORE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this petition the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Election Tribunal of North Arcot at, Vellorc made in Election Petition No. 56 of 1952 on 5-11-1952. By that order the Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition which had been filed by the petitioner to set aside the election of the second respondent to the House of the People from the Krishnagiri Parliamentary Constituency.
(2.) The necessary facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Krishnagiri Parliamentary Constituency. He filed his nomination paper on 21-11-1951 in the prescribed form. As against column 7 in the form, namely, "constituency in the electoral roll of which the name of the candidate is included", he made the following entry: " 'Graduates' Constituency (Salem District Dharmpuri Taluk Laligani Panchayat)".
(3.) Column 8 is for the serial number of the candidate in the Electoral Roll of the constituency in which his name is included. The petitioner did not give any serial number. On the date on which the petitioner filed his nomination paper his name was not included in the roll of any Parliamentary constituency. As a result of an application made by him to the Election Commission on 22-11-1951 his name was eventually included in the Parliamentary Roll of the Salem Constituency on 27-111951. On 28-11-1951 the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was taken by the second respondent that the nomination of the petitioner was not valid. The Returning Officer upheld the objection and rejected it on the ground that the nomination paper was incomplete for want of the particulars to be furnished against columns 7 and 8 and the omission of these particulars was a serious defect of a substantial character because the petitioner could not have filled up those particulars on the date of the nomination. He purported to reject the nomination under Section 36(2)(d), Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election was duly held on 8-1-1952 without the petitioner; and the second respondent was declared duly returned. The return was published on 20-1-1952. Thereupon the petitioner filed an election petition praying that the election of the second respondent may be set aside and declared void on the ground that the petitioner's nomination had been improperly and illegally rejected and such rejection had materially affected the result of the election. The Election Tribunal after enquiry, held that the rejection of the petitioner's nomination was in accordance with law and therefore the election was not liable to be set aside. The tribunal found that the petitioner was not qualified to be nominated on the date of the nomination as he was not an elector as defined in the Act on that date. The Tribunal further held that the omission on the part of the petitioner to complete the nomination paper as required by the Act was a good ground for the rejection of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The Election petition was therefore dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.