BADRI NARAYAN SINGH Vs. KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
September 22,1961
BADRI NARAYAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BHARAT CHANDRA DAS VS. PRANGOPAL CH. DAS [LAWS(GAU)-1982-6-6] [REFERRED TO]JAI NARAIN HAR NARAIN VS. L. BULAQI DAS S/O. L. MUNNA LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1968-9-11] [REFERRED TO 22,23 (1962) (V 49) : 1962 SUPP (1) SCR 206,]
BUDHAN VS. LALA HARBANS LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1972-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
DONTIREDDY VENKATA REDDY VS. BHIMAVARAPU BHUSHIREDDY AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1967-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
DONTIREDDY VENKATA REDDY VS. BHIMAVARAPU BHUSHIREDDY [LAWS(APH)-1970-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH VS. KALOO [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY VS. KAVERI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF LATE SMT. VIRENDRA KANWAR RATHORE & ORS. VS. MANGI LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-307] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN TANDON VS. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
B. SUBBA REDDY VS. V.N. SUNANDA REDDY AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2014-2-177] [REFERRED TO]
PALA NARAYANA VS. MUNUKUNTLA PULLAIAH DIED [LAWS(APH)-1988-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
VORA SALEHBHAI GULAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1967-7-10] [REFERRED]
SURESH KUMAR KANKARIYA VS. K. JIGIBAI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR VS. K. SUMATHI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1990-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
MURLI PRASAD VS. PARASNATH PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1965-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK VS. U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER TYRES LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-1992-9-8] [RELIED ON]
DEEPCHAND TEJPAL SINGH VS. NARENDRA PRASAD MITTAL [LAWS(MPH)-1968-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
KONEJETI RADHAKRISHNAIAH VS. SREE SEERHARAMA BHAKTHA SANGHEA [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-167] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR VS. DAULAT RAM [LAWS(HPH)-1964-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDHANAN PILLAI VS. KOCHUNARAYANI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1976-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM VS. AMARCHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
THEIRY SANTHANAMAL VS. VISWANATHAN & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KAUR VS. SAWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-143] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIDHAR GHOSE VS. HARIMOHAN SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-1963-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KANWAR RATHORE AND ORS. VS. MANGI LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-150] [REFERRED TO]
E.P.SAJITHKUMAR VS. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
MALIAKKAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-138] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK VS. U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-44] [REFERRED]
SOBHA SINGH AND SONS LIMITED VS. BEHARI LAL BENI PERSHAD [LAWS(DLH)-1996-3-44] [REFERRED]
BHAGWAN SAHAI VS. DARYAO KUNWAR [LAWS(ALL)-1962-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
KATHOOM BIVI AMMAL VS. ARULAPPA NADAR [LAWS(MAD)-1968-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
BAI CHANCHAL WIDOW OF CHHAGANBHAI JIBHAI VS. BAI SURAJ WIDOW OF RANCHHODBHAI CHHAGANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1962-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. BEERU RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2024-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANGLAL SHIVCHANDRAI RUIA VS. SHASHIKANT N RUIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. VS. C. CHHOTTABHAI AND COMPANY BY PARTNER, CHANDUBHAI C. PATEL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1988-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
C. HARIPRASAD AND ANR. AND VS. THE AMALGAMATED COMMERCIAL TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1971-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GAFOOR VS. WAHIDAN BIBI [LAWS(PAT)-1965-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
K. RADHAKRISHNAIAH AND OTHERS VS. SREE SEETHARAMA BHAKTHA SANGAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-168] [REFERRED TO]
P ARUMUGHAM VS. P BALASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-204] [REFERRED TO]
HARIBANS SINGH VS. BASIST KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-1984-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
LONANKUTTY VS. THOMMAN [LAWS(SC)-1976-4-38] [FOLLOWED]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. B.RANGA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. KHASHTI DEVI [LAWS(UTN)-2014-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
QAMAR JEHAN KAUSER VS. MOHD IBRAHIM MOOSA [LAWS(APH)-2006-6-145] [REFERRED TO]
VEDIAMMAL VS. M KANDASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-1997-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
RENGANAYAGI VS. K R RENGANATHAN MUDALIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-569] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHNA VS. RAM NIRANJAN [LAWS(PAT)-1984-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUNANDA DEVI VS. D SHIVA KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2011-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR SINGH VS. JAI GOPAL [LAWS(DLH)-1971-9-40] [REFERRED]
BALIJEPALLI RAMALINGAREDDI VS. AMUDALA RAMANAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1968-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA VS. INDRAWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
POOVAMMA VS. SUMATHI [LAWS(KAR)-1969-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
MAGANBHAI VS. CHETANLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
M SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR VS. JANARDHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-1993-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
VEMBAYEE AMMAL VS. SINGARAVELU UDAYAR [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
KARUNAKAR PANDA VS. DURGABATI BEWA [LAWS(ORI)-1980-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
BALJEET SINGH VS. RISAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1962-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raghubar Dayal, J. -
(1.)Badri Narain Singh, the appellant, and four other persons including Kam Deo Prasad, respondents, were candidates to the Bihar Legislative Assembly during the last general election held in 1957. Two of those candidates withdrew before the relevant date. The appellant secured the largest number of votes and was declared elected on March 14, 1957. Respondent No. 2 secured larger number of votes than Kam Deo Prasad, respondent No. 1, who filed an election petition under Ss. 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951), challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination of the appellant and respondent No. 2, who, as Ghatwals, held an office of profit, was against the provisions of S. 7 of the Act and that the appellant had also committed corrupt practices. Kam Deo Prasad, by his election petition, not only prayed for the declaration that the election of the appellant was void, but also for the declaration that he himself was duly elected. The appellant denied the allegations against him. The Election Tribunal held that Badri Narain Singh, the appellant, was guilty of corrupt practices and that a Chatwal was not a holder of an office of profit under the State of Bihar. It therefore set aside the election of the appellant, but did not grant the declaration that Kam Deo Prasad was a duly elected candidate.
(2.)The appellant filed Election Appeal No. 7 of 1958 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, against the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside his election, and prayed that the order of the Election Tribunal be set aside and that it be held that he had been duly elected. Kam Deo Prasad also filed Election Appeal No. 8 against the order of tile Election Tribunal not declaring him to be the duly elected candidate an prayed for a declaration that he had been duly elected. The grounds of appeal, questioned the correctness of the finding of the Election Tribunal that Badri Narain Singh and respondent No. 2, as Ghatwals, were not the holders of offices of profit and that Kam Deo Prasad could not be declared duly elected.
(3.)Both these appeals were disposed of by the High Court by one judgment. It did not accept, the finding of the Election Tribunal that Badri Narain Singh had committed any corrupt practice and accepted the contention for respondent No. 1 that Badri Narain Singh and respondent No. 2 held offices of profit under the Bihar Government as they were Ghatwals. It was in this view of the matter that it confirmed the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the appellant and, allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1, declared him duly elected.
(2.)The appellant filed Election Appeal No. 7 of 1958 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, against the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside his election, and prayed that the order of the Election Tribunal be set aside and that it be held that he had been duly elected. Kam Deo Prasad also filed Election Appeal No. 8 against the order of tile Election Tribunal not declaring him to be the duly elected candidate an prayed for a declaration that he had been duly elected. The grounds of appeal, questioned the correctness of the finding of the Election Tribunal that Badri Narain Singh and respondent No. 2, as Ghatwals, were not the holders of offices of profit and that Kam Deo Prasad could not be declared duly elected.
(3.)Both these appeals were disposed of by the High Court by one judgment. It did not accept, the finding of the Election Tribunal that Badri Narain Singh had committed any corrupt practice and accepted the contention for respondent No. 1 that Badri Narain Singh and respondent No. 2 held offices of profit under the Bihar Government as they were Ghatwals. It was in this view of the matter that it confirmed the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the appellant and, allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1, declared him duly elected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.