9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s nominated thereto by the said Government (vide Section 9 of the Act). 3. In suppression of the earlier notification, the Central Government by its Notification No. S.O. 1682 dated 13th April, 1973 has constituted five Regional Constituencies as set out below under column No. 1. The number of persons to be elected from the said five constituencies is also set out against them in column No. 2. (See table on next page) 4. section 23 of the Act enables the Central Council in respect of a constituency determined by the Central Government to advise and assist it in all matters concerning its functions. Not withstanding the same, the Central Council has constituted only 5 Regional councils for the very constituencies determined by the Central Government with representation on those councils as here under :- (a) Western India Regional Council 16 (b) Southern India Regional Council 12 (c) Eastern India Regional council 8 (d) Central India Regional council 5 (e) Northern India Regional council 7 5. The term of Central and Regional Councils is three years and the present of the present council is due Column No. 1 Column No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners many others had also filed their nominations to the said Councils. On the date of Scrutiny of the nominations papers of the petitioners and has accepted the nominations of many others. the material portions of the orders dated 8-6-1982, of the panel rejecting the nominations papers of the petitioners that are residents of Bangalore, communicated to their residential addresses read thus; D. L. Suresh Babu - Petitioner in W. P. 20488/1982. On a scrutiny of the nominations, it is found that the name of the constituency from which you propose to seek election has not has not been specified correctly in any of them. There is no constituency 1. The last date for receipt of nominations 22nd May, 1962. 2. The last date for withdrawal of nominations 18th June 1982 3. The last date for permission to vote by post. (a) Under Regulations 90 (2) where there is a permanent change in the address of a member from the address published in the list of voters to another place beyond a radius of 10 miles (16 Kms) from the polling booth or where a member is actually residing beyond a radius of 10 miles (16 Kms ) from the polling booth allotted to him. 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned orders has maintained that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, for which reason, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. Secondly, respondent No. 1 has urged that on the completion of elections it is open to the petitioners to approach the Election Tribunal for the very reliefs and these are not fit cases for interference of this court at this stage. Respondent No. 2 has not filed any returns, but supported respondent No. 1. 12 Sriyuths K. Srinivasan and U. L Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitioners Nos. 20488 and 20743 of 1982, respectively have contended that the rejection of nominations of their respective clients, was unauthorised and in any event was on an extremely technical ground but was not for a defect of a substantial character on which ground only they can be rejected and these are fit cases for interference of this court at this very stage not withstanding the remedy of an election petition available to them after the completion of elections. In support of their contention, counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on a Division Bench ruling of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opposite arty, in order to secure the relief prayed for. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to show that atleast one of such essential facts required to be proved to secure an order in his favour has arisen within the territory of this Court, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition (vide para 8 in Dr. P.S. Rao v. Union Government (1972) 2 Mys LJ 302 : (AIR 1974 Mys 39). 18. When the petitioners, who are residents of Bangalore, sent their nomination papers by Registered post as required by the Regulations to Delhi and the Institute dispatched its orders to Bangalore, a part of the cause of action, if not whole, without any doubt has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. If that is so that court has jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, notwithstanding the Institute and the Panel have their offices at Delhi. For these reasons, there is no merit in the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and I reject the same. 19. On the completion of elections, the petitioners can challenge their rejection of nominations in an election petition before a Tribunal constituted under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est state such egregious errors which, if the election is allowed to continue unimpeded would inevitably result in wasteful expenditure of public time and money. 21. In Fakirappa Yellappa Kali's case (1979 1 Kant LJ 153), Rama Jois, J. in the context of the bar created by sub Article (3) of Art. 226 of the Constitution, substituted by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, that was then in force, reviewing all the earlier cases of the Supreme Court and this Court ruled that it was open to this Court to interfere with the rejection of a nomination in exceptional circumstances. With the Amendment of Article 226 by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, that part of the discussion in Fakirappa Yellappa Kali's case, dealing with the existence of an alternative remedy is no longer relevant and the position is that the law as it stood prior to 1-2-1977 or prior to the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution stand restored. 22. In Hassan Uzzaman's case (1982) 2 SCC 218, that being the very latest case, the full reasons of which are still to be given, the Supreme Court has not expressed a different view than the one expressed by this Court in Muddamallappa's case (1961) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in a body if they move at all (vide Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1955] 2 SCR 603). Bearing in mind all these principles, I have to ascertain whether Explanation-I to Regulation No. 67 (10) of the Regulations is a mere explanation or an independent provision. 26. In my view, Explanation-I is not a mere explanation added to explain or elaborate Regulation No. 67 (10), but it is an independent provision. As an independent provision, it operates independently without reference to the four infirmities set out earlier. The power of the panel is not circumscribed by the four infirmities enumerated in Regulation 67 (10) only. In this view the panel had the power to reject the nominations, if there were defects of a substantial character. Hence, it is now necessary to examine whether the rejections are in conformity with Explanation I. 27. Sri. Jain who argued the cases with fairness and thoroughness, did not take the stand that the defects in the nomination fall within the four categories enumerated in Regulation No. 67 (10) of the Regulations viz., (I) that the candidate was ineligible to stand for election; or (ii) that the proposer or the seconder was not q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 1 dispels any such doubt. Even a blind man can say that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20743 of 1982, has filed his nomination paper only to the Southern India Regional Council and to no other Council. 32. At the highest the nominations of the petitioners suffer, if at all, from inadvertent and inconsequential description of the constituencies at certain places only and not at all the places. The mere omission of the words 'India' or 'region' at some places of the nominations are trivial and inconsequential. 33. In their nomination papers the petitioners have set out all the material details relating to the constituencies. Anybody examining them without any doubt and hesitation can hold that the respective nominations are filed to the respective constituencies and they are in conformity with the substantial requirement of law. 34. An Act must be read as a whole and effect must be given to every part of the statute is elementary. As I apprehend the mandate of Explanation-I of Regulation 67 (10) borrowed from similar provisions found in other election laws of the country, directs the panel or the returning officer to ignore technical defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has vested his conclusion on the instructions issued by the Secretary along with the calendar of events and in the printed nomination papers. 38. Any instructions issued in the calendar of events on the nomination forms, do not have the status if law and cannot be a basis for a superior Court to rest its conclusion. As is well known, instructions or guidance are meant for the use of candidates and officers that participate in the conduct of elections. With great respect, every one of the reasons on which Mohan. J., has held that the defect was of a substantial character, is opposed to the very meaning attached to those terms and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, I cannot, therefore, persuade myself to subscribe to the view expressed by Mohan, J., in Sivarama Krishnnan's case. 39. The ration of the ruling of this Court in K. Rahman Khan v. Secretary; the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (W.P. No. 1517 of 1973 decided on 16-7-1973) does not bear on the point. So also the rejection of Writ Petition number 4959 of 1976 decided on 22-6-1976, at the preliminary hearing stage, does not mean that this court cannot interfere on a fuller examination in another ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
