RUP LAL BHOLA NATH Vs. JUGRAJ SINGH PURAN SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-1958-5-21
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 20,1958

RUP LAL BHOLA NATH Appellant
VERSUS
JUGRAJ SINGH PURAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal arises from the order of the Election Tribunal. Bhatinda, dated 3112-1957, whereby the petition filed by Shri Rup Lal appellant calling in question the election of Shri Jugraj Singh respondent from the Moga Constituency of the punjab Legislative Assembly, was dismissed, the parties being left to bear their own costs.
(2.) THE date on which nomination papers had to be filed for the above election was 29-1-1957. The nomination paper filed by the appellant is Exhibit P. W. 1/f, according to which his proposer was Rawal Chand P. W. whose electoral roll number was 7852 in Ward No. 8 of Moga Town. Another candidate Sukhdev Singh P. W. also filed his nomination paper, Exhibit p. W. 1/h, on the same date and his proposer was Kabul (Kawal) Chand, son of khazan Chand, with electoral roll No. 7855 in Moga Assembly Constituency Part 4. The date for scrutiny of the nomination papers was 1-2-1957, and the scrutiny was conducted by Shri Bhim Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Moga (R. W. 1) who was the Returning Officer for the said election. Both these nomination papers were rejected by him and on the date fixed for scrutiny the order on the appellant's nomination paper was as follows : "the name of proposer Rawal Chand at 7852 has been scored out of electoral rolls. Rejected. " the order on Sukhdev Singh's nomination paper was as follows : "the name Kabul Chand proposer is not found in electoral rolls. Even if it is Kewal Chand at 7853, it is scored out. Rejected. "
(3.) IN the election petition it was staled that the rejection of those nomination papers by the Returning Officer was improper inasmuch as the proposer of the appellant was shown at serial No. 1866 in the electoral roll and the proposer of sukhdev Singh was shown as an elector at serial No. 16970. It was further urged in the petition that these entries were pointed out to the Returning Officer during the scrutiny, but he paid no heed, and, in any event, the defects were not of a substantial character. These arguments, however, were controverted by the respondent and the election petition went for trial on the following issues : "1. Whether the nomination of Shri Rup Lal was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, Moga? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what is its effect on the election of the respondent? 3. Whether the nomination of Shri Sukhdev Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, Moga? 4. If issue No. 3 is proved, what is its effect on the election of the respondent? 5. Relief. ";


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