1987 (7) TMI 587 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC after the settlement of issues.
2. Whether the election petition disclosed any cause of action.
3. The role of the Returning Officer under Section 33(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
4. The impact of misnomer or inaccurate description in the electoral roll and nomination paper.
5. Whether the result of the election was materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination paper.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC after the settlement of issues:
The appellant argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC after issues were framed. He contended that once issues are framed, the court should proceed to record evidence and decide the issues based on the evidence produced. However, the Supreme Court held that this argument was without merit. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, Bhagwati Prashad v. Rajiv Gandhi, and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, which established that an election petition could be rejected summarily under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if it did not disclose any cause of action. The Court clarified that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, including after the framing of issues.

2. Whether the election petition disclosed any cause of action:
The appellant contended that his election petition disclosed a cause of action, specifically alleging that his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, which materially affected the election result. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appellant's petition did not disclose any cause of action. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 was to prevent meaningless litigation from occupying the court's time. The Court reiterated that if an election petition does not disclose a cause of action, it can be dismissed summarily at any stage of the proceedings.

3. The role of the Returning Officer under Section 33(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
The appellant argued that the Returning Officer acted in violation of the proviso to Section 33(4) by failing to correct entries in his nomination paper and the list of contesting candidates. The Supreme Court explained that Section 33(4) required the Returning Officer to ensure that the names and electoral roll numbers in the nomination paper matched those in the electoral roll. The proviso allowed the Returning Officer to correct any misnomer, inaccurate description, or clerical error. However, the Court found that in this case, there was no discrepancy between the entries in the nomination paper and the electoral roll that required correction. The appellant had himself declared his name as "Samay Singh S/o S.P. Singh," and the Returning Officer had no authority to make corrections after the nomination paper was accepted.

4. The impact of misnomer or inaccurate description in the electoral roll and nomination paper:
The appellant claimed that his name was incorrectly entered in the electoral roll as "Samay Singh S/o S.P. Singh" instead of "Samar Singh S/o S.B. Singh." The Supreme Court found that the appellant had presented his nomination paper under the name "Samay Singh S/o S.P. Singh" and had declared this name as correct. The Court held that the Returning Officer had no authority to correct the name after the nomination paper was accepted and the list of contesting candidates was prepared. The Court concluded that the appellant's grievance regarding the incorrect name was without merit.

5. Whether the result of the election was materially affected by the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination paper:
The appellant argued that the improper acceptance of his nomination paper materially affected the election result. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Returning Officer had committed no illegality or irregularity in accepting the nomination paper. The Court emphasized that the appellant's name and electoral roll number in the nomination paper matched those in the electoral roll, and there was no improper acceptance. The Court also noted that voters cast their votes based on the symbol allotted to the candidate, not the candidate's name. The appellant's assertion that he lost interest in the election due to the incorrect name was found to be without merit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The Court found that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and that the Returning Officer had acted within his jurisdiction. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,000.