PETITIONER:
B. DANDAPANI PATRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RETURNING OFFICER-CUM-SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,BERHAMPUR AND O
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1989
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H.
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1989 SCR Supl. (2) 100 1990 SCC (1) 505
JT 1990 (2) 616 1990 SCALE (1)24
ACT:
Representation of the People Act, 1950/Representation of
the People Act, 1951/Registration of Electors Rules, 1980:
Sections 16 and 21 /Section 33/Rules 16-21A and 22--Candi-
date--Elector of different constituency--Producing of at-
tested copy of relevant part of electoral roll as it stood
before final revision--Rejection of nomination paper-Validi-
ty of--Attested copy of electoral roll--What is.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was a candidate for election to the Legis-
lative Assembly. As he was standing for election from a
constituency other than the one in which he was an elector,
he filed an attested copy of the relevant part of the elec-
toral roll relating to the constituency in which he was an
elector, along with the nomination paper. On an objection by
one of the candidates, the Returning Officer rejected the.
appellant's nomination paper for non-compliance with Section
33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The
appellant filed an Election Petition before the High Court,
which dismissed the same.
In the appeal filed before this Court, the appellant
contended that since he had produced before the Returning
Officer an attested copy of the relevant part of the elec-
toral roll of the constituency in which he was an elector,
the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of non-
compliance with Section 33(5) of the said Act was wrong and
bad in law.
Dismissing the appear, this Court,
HELD: The publication of the integrated roll is not
essential for the revision of the electoral roll to be
complete and the electoral roll with the amendments duly
published becomes the final electoral roll for the constitu-
ency. [103D]
In the instant case, admittedly, the electoral roll of
the State Assembly was directed to be revised and was, in
fact, revised as on January 1, 1984 and the supplementary
electoral roll notifying the
101
changes to be incorporated on the revision was published and
available before February 1985. [102F]
However, what the appellant produced before the Return-
ing Officer was not an attested copy of the final electoral
roll for the said constituency although the final roll was
available, but only an attested copy of the electoral roll
as it stood on July 21, 1983. The production of such attest-
ed copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll as it
stood before the final revision cannot amount to compliance
with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the
said Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly rejected.
[103F]
Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh & Ors., [1966] 3 SCR 543,
relied on.
Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar v. Gene Govind Kadam &
Ors., [1988] 3 Judgments Today 662, distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2542
(NCE) of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.1986 of the
Orissa High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1985.
S.P. Singh and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
G.L. Sanghi, M.A Firoz and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIA, J. This is an appeal from the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing
Election Petition No. 7 of 1985 filed by the appellant in
that Court.
The facts of the case have been fully set out in the
impugned judgment of the High Court and hence, little pur-
pose would be served in setting them out here again. It
should be sufficient to note only the few facts required to
be set out to appreciate the controversy arising before us.
The election in question was to the Legislative Assembly
of the Orissa State from 74-Gopalpur (SchedUled Caste)
Assembly Constituency. This election was held in March 1985.
The last date for filing the nomination papers was February
8, 1985. The date of scrutiny was
102
as February 9, 1985. The last date for withdrawal of the
nominations was February 11, 1985, February 10, 1985 being a
Sunday. The appellant duly filed his nomination papers for
the seat and along with the other papers, he filed an at-
tested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll
relating to 67 Sorada Assembly Constituency in which he was
an elector. This was required because he was standing for
election from a constituency other than the one in which he
was an elector. On an objection by one of the candidates,
the said nomination paper was rejected for non-compliance
with section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The con-
tention of the appellant is that he had produced before the
Returning Officer an attested copy of the relevant part of
the electoral roll of the constituency in which he was an
elector and hence, the rejection of his nomination paper on
the ground of non-compliance with section 33(5) of the said
Act was wrong and bad in law.
As we have already pointed out, it is common ground that
what the appellant produced before the Re.turning Officer
was an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral
roll of the constituency in’ which he was an elector and
that copy admittedly was dated July 13, 1983. There is a
finding that the appellant had obtained the said copy on
July 19, 1983 although he sought to contend that he had
obtained it on July 19, 1984. The correctness of that find-
ing has rightly not been assailed before us. Section 15 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as “the 2950 Act”) provides that for any con-
stituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be
prepared in accordance with the provisions of that Act under
the directions and supervision of the Election Commission.
It is the admitted position in the case before us that
the electoral roll of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, was
directed to be revised and was, in fact, revised as on
January 1, 1984 and the supplementary electoral roll notify-
ing the changes to be incorporated on the revision was
published and available before February 1985. Section 21 of
the 1950 Act deals with the preparation and revision of
electoral rolls. Sub-section (1) of that section states that
the electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared
in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date
and shall come into force immediately upon its publication
according to law. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that
section provides unless otherwise directed by the Election
Commission the electoral roll shall be revised in the pre-
scribed manner with reference to the qualifying date before
each General Election to the House of the People or to the
Legislative Assembly of a State. The provisions
103
of Rule 22 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules of 1960”) read
with the provisions of Rules 15 to 21-A thereof show that
when the electoral roll has to be revised the names of
persons inadvertently omitted have to be included and the
names of dead electors and of persons who ceased to be or
are not ordinarily resident in the constituency have to be
deleted from the electoral roll and so on. After this, the
officer concerned prepares the list of amendments to be
carried out to the electoral roll. Provisions are also made
for the correction of any clerical or printing errors in the
earlier roll. After the completion of this task, either the
entire revised electoral roll is to be prepared or the
amendments in the existing electoral roll have to be made
and incorporated in the electoral roll and published sepa-
rately along with the original electoral roll. A complete
electoral roll is made available for inspection and a notice
to that effect is displayed in Form No. 16. Rule 22(2) of
the said Rules of 1960 lays that on such publication, the
roll together with the list of amendments shall be the
electoral roll of the constituency. Subrule (3) of Rule 22
of the said Rules of 1960 shows that these amendments may be
incorporated and an integrated roll may be published subject
to any general or special directions issued by the Election
Commission. It is clear on the reading of these provisions
that the publication of the integrated roll is not essential
for the revision of the electoral roll to be complete and
the electoral roll with the amendments duly published be-
comes the final electoral roll for the constituency. In the
present case, it is clear that what the appellant produced
before the Returning Officer was not an attested copy of the
final electoral roll for the said constituency for the
election in question although the final roll was available.
What he produced was an attested copy of the electoral roll
as it stood on July 21, 1983 and the production of such
attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll as
it stood before the final revision cannot amount to compli-
ance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 33 of
the said Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly reject-
ed.
We are supported in our views by the decision of this
Court in Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh & Ors., [1966] 3 SCR
543. It was held that:
“When S. 33(5) refers to a copy of the rele-
vant parts of the electoral roll, it means a
part as defined in rule 5. A complete copy
would carry the various amendments made in the
roll and enable the Returning Officer to see
whether the name of the candidate continued in
the roll for the whole of the relevant
period.”
104
In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that when
section 33(5) of the said Act refers to a copy of the rele-
vant part of the electoral roll, it means a part as defined
in Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1960. The complete copy would
carry the various amendments made in the roll to enable the
Returning Officer to see whether the name of the candidate
continues in the roll.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed a strong reli-
ance on the decision of this Court in Jagannath Ramchandra
Nunekar v. Gene Govind Kadam & Ors., [1988] 3 Judgments
Today 662. That judgment is, however, clearly distinguisha-
ble on facts. In that case, a certified copy of the relevant
entry in the electoral roll was furnished to the appellant
on January 8, 1986 which was only one day before the date on
which he filed his nomination paper. The presumption would,
therefore, arise that such a certified copy would be of the
relevant entry in the final electoral roll and that presump-
tion was justified on the actual facts. That decision has no
application to this case where a certified copy of the
relevant part of the electoral roll was applied for and
obtained several months before the revision of the electoral
roll. The ratio of the judgment cited is, therefore, not
applicable to the case before us.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.
105