1978 (2) TMI 229 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Improper rejection of the nomination papers of Shri Devinder Kumar.
2. Illegal inclusion and exclusion of certain areas from constituency No. 33.
3. Finality and objection to the list of voters for a constituency.
4. Material effect on the election result due to improper reception or exclusion of votes.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Improper Rejection of the Nomination Papers of Shri Devinder Kumar
The petitioner argued that Shri Devinder Kumar's nomination papers were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer without verifying that he was a voter at Serial No. 1021 Part 416-C of the East Delhi Parliamentary Constituency Electoral Roll. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers because Shri Devinder Kumar did not produce a copy of the electoral roll or a certified copy of the relevant entries at the time of scrutiny as required under Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court held that the provisions of Section 33(5) are mandatory and non-compliance with these provisions justified the rejection of the nomination papers. The court also found that Shri Devinder Kumar was not present at the time of scrutiny and did not point out the correct electoral roll number to the Returning Officer. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination papers was held to be proper.

Issue No. 2: Illegal Inclusion and Exclusion of Certain Areas from Constituency No. 33
The petitioner contended that the inclusion of 22 polling stations of Nand Nagri and Mandoli in constituency No. 33 and the exclusion of polling stations Nos. 15 and 26 were illegal. The court examined the notifications and found that village Mandoli and Nand Nagri were included in constituency No. 33 as per the Delimitation Commission's Order No. 40 and subsequent corrections made by the Election Commission. The court also found that polling station No. 15, Jagjiwan Nagar, was erroneously included in constituency No. 33 and was later deleted by a corrigendum notification. The court held that the corrections made in the list of polling stations were within the powers of the District Election Officer and did not violate any provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Issue No. 3: Finality and Objection to the List of Voters for a Constituency
The court held that the list of voters for a constituency is final and not open to objection once it is published. The court found that the corrections made in the Delimitation Commission's orders were final and could not be called into question in any court. The court also held that any non-compliance with the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 1972, could not be a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue No. 4: Material Effect on the Election Result Due to Improper Reception or Exclusion of Votes
The court held that there was no improper reception or refusal of any votes as the inclusion and exclusion of polling stations were done in accordance with the law. The court found that the voters of polling station No. 15, Jagjiwan Nagar, and the voters of Jyoti Nagar Colony were not electors of constituency No. 33 and had no right to vote in that constituency. Therefore, the issue of whether the result of the election was materially affected did not arise for determination.

Relief:
The election petition was dismissed with costs, and counsel fee was set at Rs. 1,000.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the election petition, holding that the rejection of Shri Devinder Kumar's nomination papers was proper, the inclusion and exclusion of polling stations were lawful, the list of voters was final and not open to objection, and there was no material effect on the election result due to improper reception or exclusion of votes.