Case: Kabul Singh Vs. Kundan Singh &amp; Ors

In that election petition, Kundan Singh, the 1st respondent to this appeal challenged the validity of the Returning Officers declaration that the appellant has been duly elected from the Hoshiarpur Local Authorities Constituency to the Punjab Legislative Council in the election held in April, 1968. The High Court came to the conclusion that some of the votes polled in that election were invalid votes and if the valid votes alone are taken into consideration, as it should have been, then the 1st respondent is entitled to be declared elected. It accordingly set aside the declaration made in favour of the appellant and declared the 1st respondent as having been duly elected.2. We may now briefly state the material facts. In March 1968, the Hoshiarpur Local Authorities Constituency was called upon to elect one member to the Punjab Legislative Council. The election calendar was asThe last date for filing nomination papers - 12-3-1968.(2) Date of scrutiny of the nomination papers - 13-3-1968.(3) The last date for withdrawal of candidatures - 16-3-1968.(4) Date of polling - 7-4-1968.(5) Date of counting and declaration of result -that election, as many as five candidates contested. They are the appellant and the respondents herein. On April 8, 1968, the Returning Officer after counting the votes cast declared the appellant to be the successful candidate as he had secured one vote more than the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent challenged that declaration in the aforementioned election petition on various grounds of which, at present, we are only concerned with one viz., that the vote of Hari Singh should have been held to be a void vote as his name was included in the electoral roll on April 5, 1968, i.e., just two days before the date of polling. In his turn the appellant filed a recriminatory petition contending inter alia that the vote of Tarsem Singh was void as by the time the polling took place, he had become a government servant and the votes of two other persons namely Harjinder Singh and Balwant Singh were void as their names were included in the electoral roll after the last date for filing nominations for the election. Other grounds taken in the recriminatory petition are not relevant for our present purpose. They have not been pressed before us.3. The election petition came up for trial before Mahajan J. The learned Judge submitted the following question to a Full Bench forallegation in para. 4 (a) pertaining to the vote of Hari Singh is correct and the vote was void and was polled in favour of respondent No. 1 in violation of the Rules and has materially affected the result of the election of respondent No.Full Bench by majority came to the conclusion that the vote of Hari Singh was void as his name was included in the electoral roll of the constituency after the last date for making nominations for the election in that constituency. Thereafter the case was sent back to Mahajan, J., for deciding the issues left undecided. On the basis of the opinion expressed by the Full Bench, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the votes of Hari Singh, Harjinder Singh and Balwant Singh were void votes. Consequently he recounted the votes validly cast and came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent had been duly elected. He gave a declaration to that effect.

Reasoning: This is an untenable contention. The votes of Harjinder Singh and Balwant Singh have been rejected on the ground that their names were included in the electoral roll in defiance of the mandate given under Section 23 (3) of the 1950 Act. What applies to Hari Singh equally applies to Harjinder Singh and Balwant Singh. The fact that the 1st respondent did not challenge the validity of those votes is immaterial in the circumstances of this case. The election petition and the recriminatory petition were parts of one enquiry. As the validity of these three votes had come up for consideration and as it has been held that those votes are void votes, it necessarily follows that those votes must be excluded from consideration in determining the result of theratio of that decision has no application to the facts of the present case.That decision was rendered before sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act was incorporated into the 1950 Act. The mandate of that provision is plain and unambiguous. It prohibits inclusion of any name in the electoral roll after the prescribed date whether the application for inclusion was made before or after thatcontention cannot beview of those provisions read with Section 23 (3) of the 1950 Act every person who is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of a constituency as it stood on the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency is entitled to vote unless it is shown that he is prohibited by any of the provisions of the Act from exercising his vote.The prohibitions contained in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 62 of the Act do not apply to the case of Tarsem Singh. Therefore we have to see whether the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) applies to his case. That sub-section says that no person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in Section 16 of the 1950view of those provisions read with Section 23 (3) of the 1950 Act every person who is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of a constituency as it stood on the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency is entitled to vote unless it is shown that he is prohibited by any of the provisions of the Act from exercising his vote.The prohibitions contained in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 62 of the Act do not apply to the case of Tarsem Singh. Therefore we have to see whether the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) applies to his case. That sub-section says that no person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in Section 16 of the 1950