Case: Dev Kanta Barooah Vs. Kusharam Nath &amp; Others

Number of proposer ...Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency, Part No. 10 of the Electoral Roll of village Phulaniati, Mouza Hatichung, Police Station Sadar, Nowgong, Roll No. 59/1956.3. Name of the candidates father ...Krishna Ram Nath.4. Full postal address of candidate ...Village Phulaniati, Post Office Chakalaghat, District Nowgong, Assam.5. Electoral Roll Number of candidate ...Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency, Part No. 10 of the Electoral roll of village Phulaniati, Mouza Hatichung, Police Station Sadar, Nowgong, Roll No. 275/1956.Date : 28-1-57Sd. Lahi Ram Nath.Signature of proposer.It is clear that this nomination paper specifies the serial number of the entry in the electoral roll as well as the serial number of the part of the electoral roll in which such entry occurs. Both these entries are to be found against cols. 2 and 5. It is, however, urged that the name of the constituency to which the electoral roll relates has not been mentioned either in col. 2 or col. 5. No doubt in both the entries reference is made to Nowgong but the constituency is Nowgong Assembly Constituency, and since the words "Assembly Constituency" do not follow the word Nowgong it cannot be said that the name of the constituency has been properly stated. That is the gist of the argument urged on behalf of the appellant. This argument has been rejected both by the Election Tribunal as well as by the High Court; and we see no reason to take a different view. It is significant that in both the columns the words "Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency" are entered, and then is mentioned Nowgong. Reading each of the two entries as a whole it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the two entries refer to Nowgong Assembly Constituency. The nomination paper begins with the statement that respondent 1 is nominated as a candidate for election from the Nowgong Assembly Constituency, and then in stating the electoral roll number of the proposer and the candidate respectively in cols. 2 and 5 the words "Assam Legislative Assembly Constituency" as well as Nowgong are used. Technically it would have been more accurate to have described the constituency as Nowgong Assembly Constituency, but, having regard to the manner in which both the columns have been filled, we do not think that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that in substance the name of the constituency has been mentioned in the two columns. It is not disputed that the serial number of the entry and the serial number of the part of the electoral roll mentioned in the nomination paper referred to this constituency; and so it is not at all unreasonable to construe the relevant entries in the manner adopted by the Election Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, having regard to the manner in which the nomination paper has been filled and taking into account the whole of the relevant entry against cols. 2 and 5, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in not upholding the technical objection raised by the appellant. We are not impressed by the argument that the details mentioned in the two columns before Nowgong indicate that Nowgong there means the place of residence of the proposer and the candidate respectively and not the name of the constituency.9. Incidentally we may refer to annexure C mentioned in the judgment of the High Court. This annexure is a notification under S. 30(d) of the Act specifying the dates for the purpose of holding the election. In this notification the serial numbers and the names of the Assembly Constituencies were indicated in the table annexed to it. The relevant Assembly Constituency was shown as "No. 69-Nowgong". Nobody suggested that this description was inaccurate. The learned judges of the High Court thought that in the circumstances of the case the word Nowgong" used in cols. 2 and 5 of the nomination papers signified in the context "Nowgong Assembly Constituency"; and we are satisfied that this view is right.10. Once it is held that on a reasonable construction of the nomination papers the requirements of S. 33 (4) have been complied with, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the alleged defect was of a substantial character under S. 36(4) of the Act. That is why we do not propose to deal with or discuss the decisions to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri for the appellant. These decisions are : P. N. Balasubrahmanyan v. Election Tribunal of North Arcot, ILR (1954) Mad 677 : (AIR 1954 Mad 730 ), R. v. Tugwell, (1868) 3 QB 704, Gothard v. Clarke, (1880) 5 CPD 253, Baldwin v. Ellis, (1929) 1 KB 273 and Brij Sundar Sharma v. Election Tribunal, Jaipur, 12 ELR 216 : (S (S) AIR 1957 Raj 189 ). In all these decisions a defect or irregularity had been proved in the nomination paper, and so it was necessary to consider the effect of the said defect or irregularity. Since we have held that the nomination paper in the present case is not defective we do not propose to express any opinion on the alternative argument which was urged before us on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Viswanatha Sastri has also fairly invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Karail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, 10 ELR 189 (SC), which is against his contention. In that case the name of the part of the electoral roll in which the name of the candidate appeared was not filled up against col. 8 of the nomination paper but there was no difficulty in identifying the candidate and the entry of his name in the roll was pointed out to the returning officer, but nevertheless he rejected the nomination paper on the ground that it had not been duly filled up. This Court held, affirming the decision of the majority of the Election Tribunal, that the defect was only technical and not of a substantial character and that the nomination paper was improperly rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This argument has been rejected both by the Election Tribunal as well as by the High Court; and we see no reason to take a differenthaving regard to the manner in which the nomination paper has been filled and taking into account the whole of the relevant entry against cols. 2 and 5, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in not upholding the technical objection raised by the appellant.