{"id":242100,"date":"1985-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985"},"modified":"2016-02-03T03:33:12","modified_gmt":"2016-02-02T22:03:12","slug":"lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","title":{"rendered":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 1073, \t\t 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 592<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLILA KRISHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANI RAM GODARA & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR 1073\t\t  1985 SCR  Supl. (1) 592\n 1985 SCC  Supl.  179\t  1985 SCALE  (1)991\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1985 SC1079\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Representation of\tthe People Act, 1951, ss. 33 (4) and\n36(4)-Scrutiny\t of   Nomination   Papers-Scope\t  of-Whether\nReturning Officer  is under  an\t obligation  to\t verify\t the\nentire Electoral Roll to establish identity of proper.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Respondents challenged  in the  High Court the election\nof the\tappellant to  Fatehbad Constituency  of the  Haryana\nLegislative   Assembly\t  under\t  s.100(1)    (c)   of\t the\nRepresentation of  the People  Act 1951\t (Act, for short) on\nthe ground  that the  nomination papers\t of  two  candidates\nbeing Mani  Ram Chhapola  and Raj  Tilak had been improperly\nrejected by  the Returning Officer. The proposer of Mani Ram\nChhapola was  one Brij\tBhushan while  the proposer  of\t Raj\nTilak was one Upender Kumar. Brij Bhushan's serial number in\nthe electoral  roll was\t 26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In\nForm 3A,  these numbers were correctly indicated. But in the\nnomination papers  the numbers had been shown as 126 and 177\nrespectively The Returning Officer rejected these nomination\npapers as the serial number of the proposers as disclosed in\nthe nomination\tpapers did  not tally  with reference to the\nelectoral roll. The High Court set aside the election of the\nappellant holding that the Returning Officer acted mala fide\nand had\t either directly  or indirectly been responsible for\nthe  alteration\t  in  the   nomination\tpapers,\t  since\t the\nnomination papers  when filed  were in\torder and while they\nwere   in   the\t  custody   of\t the   Returning   Officer's\nEstablishment, interpolations had been made and on the basis\nthereof the nomination papers had been rejected.\n     Allowing the appeal to this Court by the appellant,\n^\n     HELD: 1. (i) When admittedly the nomination papers have\nbeen handled  by the  staff  in\t the  establishment  of\t the\nReturning Officer  and by  the candidates  and their  agents\nbefore scrutiny\t began,\t it  is\t difficult  to\tascribe\t the\ninsertion of figure '1' to the Returning Officer. Therefore,\nthe conclusion\tof the High Court that the Returning Officer\neither\tby   himself  or   through   somebody\tcaused\t the\ninterpolation to be done is totally unwarranted even if this\nCourt accepts as a fact that the figure '1' appearing before\nthe rest  of the  number in  the column for serial number in\nthe electoral  roll was not there when the nomination papers\nhad been  filed. Strictly  speaking, the  insertion  in\t the\ninstant case  is a forgery and amounts to a criminal etc. To\nput that  responsibility on  the Returning  Officer  without\ncogent evidence is highly improper. [597H; 598A; C-D]\n593\n     1.\t (ii)  From  the  evidence  it\tis  clear  that\t the\nnomination papers  were taken  up for scrutiny one after the\nother and the Returning Officer has stated   that he used to\npass orders either of acceptance or rejection of each of the\nnomination papers after due scrutiny. That position has also\nbeen accepted\tby  witnesses on  the sides  of the election\npetitioners. The  evidence  on\tthe  side  of  the  election\npetitioners does  indicate that\t the nomination\t papers were\nfirst shown  to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny\nfollowed thereafter.  The Returning  Officer had  denied, as\nalready pointed\t out, that  he had  made an open declaration\nthat all  the nomination  papers were  in  order.  Mani\t Ram\nChhapola has  admitted in  his deposition  that by 2 P.M. on\nthe date  of scrutiny the fact that his nomination paper had\nbeen rejected  on the  ground indicated had been notified to\nhim by\tthe Returning  Officer.\t If  the  Returning  Officer\nwanted to play any mischief he could have avoided intimating\nthe fact  of rejection\tor at  any rate delayed the same. In\nthe absence  of cogent\tevidence on the side of the election\npetitioners and\t accepting the\tevidence  of  the  Returning\nOfficer that  he had  scrutinised the  nomination papers one\nafter the  other and  contemporaneously accepted or rejected\nthe same  by providing\tgrounds of  rejection, there  is  no\ndoubt that  contemporaneous order  rejecting the  nomination\npapers had been made in the instant cases. [598 F-H; 599A]\n     2(i) Indisputably\tthe insistence\ton disclosure of the\nserial number  in the prescribed column against the proposer\nis  for\t  the  purpose\t of  identifying  the  proposer\t and\nascertaining that  he is  competent to propose. The scope of\nscrutiny  is   obviously  to  verify  the  contents  of\t the\nnomination paper  with a  view to  ascertaining whether\t the\nform is in order and what is required to be complied with by\nthe election law has been duly complied with. This Court has\nrepeatedly held\t that election\tproceedings  are  strict  in\nnature and  what is required to be performed in a particular\nmanner has to be done as required and substantial compliance\nhas ordinarily\tno place  while dealing\t with the Act or the\nRules made  thereunder. That  is why  an exception  has been\nmade by\t inserting sub-s. (4) of s.36 of the Act. Therefore,\nto cast\t the obligation\t of the\t Returning Officer  to\tlook\nthrough the  entire electoral roll of a particular part with\na view\tto finding  out the  identity of the proposer is not\nthe requirement of the law. To read that as an obligation is\nlikely to lead to a unworkable position. [601 C-F]\n     2(ii) The\tcontents of  the proviso  to S.33 sub-s. (4)\nand the\t provisions of\tsub-s. (4)  of s. 36 of the Act when\nread together  make it clear that the mistake with reference\nto the\tserial number  was such\t an error in this case which\ncould be  corrected. Under  section 36(1) of the Act, on the\ndate fixed for scrutiny of nominations, election agents, one\nproposer of  each candidate  and  one  another\tperson\tduly\nauthorised in  writing by  each candidate  are\tentitled  to\nappear before  the Returning  Officer, and  such persons are\nentitled  to   reasonable  facilities\tfor  examining\t the\nnomination papers The purpose of making such provision is to\nfacilitate scrutiny. The presence of candidate, his election\nagent and  another person  acquainted with  the Constituency\nwould certainly\t facilitate the process of scrutiny. Defects\ncovered by  the proviso to s. 33(4) could easily be resolved\nif people  authorised under  s. 36(1) of the Act are present\nat the time of the scrutiny. [603 B-D]\n594\n     2(iii) In\tthe instant  case, no one was available, for\ninstance, when\tthe Returning Officer took up the nomination\npaper of  Mani Ram  Chhapola, to  indicate to  the Returning\nOfficer that  his serial number in the electoral roll was 26\nand not\t 126. If  this had  been pointed  out and on summary\nenquiry Returning  Officer  was\t satisfied  that  it  was  a\nmistake, clerical  in  nature,\tand  the  identity  of\tBrij\nBhushan was not in dispute, there would have been end of the\nmatter. If  the\t correlation  has  not\tbeen  made  and\t the\nReturning  Officer   has  no   assistance  to\tfix  up\t the\nidentification it  cannot be  said to  be a  defect  not  of\nsubstantial character.\tMoreover, it  could not be statutory\nobligation  of\tthe  Returning\tOfficer\t to  scrutinise\t the\nelectoral roll\tfor finding out the identity of the proposer\nwhen the  serial number\t turns\tout  to\t be  wrong.  But  if\ninterested and\tcompetent persons point out to the Returning\nOfficer that  it is  a mistake,\t it would  certainly be\t his\nobligation to  look into  the matter to find out whether the\nmistake, is inconsequential and has, therefore, either to be\npermitted to be corrected or to be overlooked. When scrutiny\nwas taken  up Mani  Ram Chhapola  and Raj Tilak on their own\nshowing were  not  present  before  the\t Returning  Officer.\nSimilarly, the\tproposers, Brij\t Bhushan and  Upender  Kumar\nwere also  absent. Though  there is  evidence on the side of\nthe  election\tpetitioners  that  the\tAssistant  Returning\nOfficer was  present at the time of scrutiny, he as PW.4 has\ncategorically denied that fact. The Returning Officer, RW.3,\nhas stated  that the  Assistant Returning  Officer  was\t not\npresent when  he took  up scrutiny on the nomination papers.\nThere is  also evidence\t from the side of the appellant that\nthe Assistant  Returning Officer  was not  present.  In\t the\ncircumstances, if  the nomination  papers have been rejected\nfor mistake  in the  nomination papers\tit is the candidates\nthemselves who have to thank their lot and no mistake can be\nfound with  the Returning Officer. Therefore, the nomination\npapers were  validly rejected.\tBrij Mohan  v. Sat Pal, C.A.\nNo.<\/a> 2650\/84  disposed of  on 13.3.85 followed. [603 E-H; 599\nB-D; 604 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4123 of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.84 of the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 1 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     H.L. Sibal,  O.C. Mathur,\tS. Sukumaran  and D.N. Misra
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.N. Kacker, Mahabir Singh, L.K. Pandey, N. S. Bishnoi,
\nP.K. Sandhir and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RANGANATH MISRA,  J. This\tappeal under Section 116A(1)
\nof the\tRepresentation of  the People  Act, 1951  (‘Act’ for
\nshort) is  directed against  the judgment  of the  Punjab  &
\nHaryana High Court
\n595<\/span>
\nsetting aside  the election  of the  appellant to  Fatehabad
\nConstituency  of   the\tHaryana\t  Legislative  Assembly.  By
\nNotification dated  November 23,  1983, the Constituency was
\ncalled upon  to elect  a member at the by-election. November
\n30, 1983,  was appointed  as the  last date  for receipt  of
\nnomination papers.  Scrutiny was  scheduled for\t December 1,
\n1983. Poll  was held  on December 23, 1983 and appellant was
\ndeclared as the returned candidate by securing 1339 votes in
\nexcess of  votes polled by respondent 1 who had been fielded
\nas the common opposition candidate. On February 2, 1984, the
\nrespondents filed  an Election\tPetition asking the election
\nof the\tappellant to  be set  aside on\tthe ground  provided
\nunder s.100(1)(c)  of the  Act\tby  the\t pleading  that\t the
\nnomination papers  of two  candidates being Mani Ram Chapola
\nand Raj\t Tilak had been improperly rejected by the Returning
\nOfficer.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  pleaded that  the nomination papers were
\ndefective and,\ttherefore, liable  to be  rejected  and\t the
\nReturning Officer  had acted  properly in rejecting them. It
\nwas further  pleaded that  defective nomination\t papers\t had
\nbeen intentionally  filed with\ta view\tto  challenging\t the
\nelection in case it went in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Both sides\t led oral  evidence.  On  the  side  of\t the
\nelection petitioners,  the Assistant Returning Officer among
\nothers was examined as PW.4 while for the returned candidate
\n(respondent before  the High  Court), the  Returning Officer
\nwas examined  as R.W.3.\t The nomination\t papers as  also the
\norders of  rejection were  produced and\t duly exhibited. The
\nHigh Court  came to  hold that\tthe nomination\tpapers\twhen
\nfiled were  in order  and while\t they were in the custody of
\nthe Returning  Officer’s establishment,\t interpolations\t had
\nbeen made and on the basis thereof the nomination papers had
\nbeen rejected.\tThough the  election petitioners  failed  to
\nestablish their\t plea  contained  in  paragraph\t 16  of\t the
\nelection petition that the Returning Officer acted mala fide
\nat the\tbehest of the Chief Minister of the State, the Court
\ntook the view that the Returning Officer acted mala fide and
\nhad either  directly or\t indirectly been responsible for the
\nalteration  in\t the  nomination   papers.  Accordingly\t the
\nelection has  been set\taside and  the\tReturning  Officer’s
\nconduct has  been criticised and he has been directed by the
\nHigh Court  to share  the liability of half the costs of the
\nelection  petition.   The  Returning  Officer  had  filed  a
\nseparate appeal\t which is  being  disposed  of\ttoday  by  a
\nseparate judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  no dispute  before us that if the nominations
\nof the\ttwo candidates-Mani  Ram Chapola  and Raj  Tilak are
\nfound to
\n596<\/span>
\nhave been  improperly rejected the election of the appellant
\nmust be\t held to  have been  rightly set  aside. That is the
\neffect of  s.100(1)  (c)  of  the  Act.\t The  only  question
\nrelevant for  the disposal  of this appeal is, therefore, to
\nexamine and  decide whether  the High Court was right in its
\nconclusion  that   the\ttwo   nomination  papers   had\tbeen
\nimproperly rejected. The relevant nomination papers relating
\nto Mani\t Ram Chapola  and Raj  Tilak have  been produced and
\nproved as Exhibits P-1 and P-6 respectively. The orders made
\nby the\tReturning  Officers  rejecting\tthe  two  nomination
\npapers have  also been\tproduced  and  marked  as  Exhibits.
\nSimilarly, the notice in statutory form 3A as required under
\nrule 7\tof the\tConduct\t of  Election  Rules,  1961,  to  be
\npublished in  the notice  board of the Returning Officer has
\nbeen produced and exhibited.\n<\/p>\n
     The Returning  officer’s order  of rejection in respect
\nof both\t the nomination\t papers is  almost in similar terms.
\nWe,  therefore,\t  propose  to\textract\t one   of  them\t for
\nconvenience. The order of rejection reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “S.No. of the vote of proposer does not tally with
\n     S.No. mentioned in voter list. Hence rejected.”
\nThe order is cryptic and there is force in the submission of
\nMr. Kacker  appearing for the respondents that the order has
\nto be  interpreted;  otherwise\tit  makes  no  meaning.\t All
\nparties have  agreed before  us that  the true import of the
\norder is that the serial number of the proposer disclosed in
\nthe nomination\tpaper did  not tally  with the serial number
\ngiven in  the electoral\t roll. On  that ground\teach of\t the
\nnomination papers has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     It is the case of the election petitioners and the High
\nCourt has  accepted that  stand that  the nomination  papers
\nwere received  by the Assistant Returning Officer, PW.4, and
\nhe caused the notice in form 3A to be prepared for being put
\nin the\tnotice board.  The proposer  of Mani Ram Chapola was
\none Brij  Bhushan while\t the proposer  of Raj  Tilak was one
\nUpender Kumar.\tBrij Bhushan’s\tserial in the electoral roll
\nwas 26\twhile Upender  Kumar’s was  77.\t In  form  3A  these
\nnumbers have been correctly indicated. But in the nomination
\npapers\tthe   number  have   been  shown   as  126  and\t 177
\nrespectively. The  discrepancy has  arisen on account of the
\nappearance of  the figure  ‘1’ before  the correct number in
\nthe electoral  roll. The  Assistant Returning  Officer P.W.4
\nhas stated:\n<\/p>\n
597<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “I had  received the\tnomination papers  from\t the
\n     candidates\t who  wanted  to  contest  election  to\t the
\n     Fatehabad\tconstituency   in  the\tby-election  between
\n     26.11.1983 to  30.11.1983 in  my capacity\tas Assistant
\n     Returning Officer\tof that constituency. I have seen Ex
\n     P.I 1,  the nomination  paper of  Shri Mani Ram Chapola
\n     and Ex.P6,\t the nomination paper of Shri Raj Tilak when
\n     I received\t these two nomination papers. I had compared
\n     the vote  number of the candidate and the proposer with
\n     the electoral roll of that constituency.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The witness further said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The correct\tposition of  these nomination papers
\n     which  I  found  regarding\t the  vote  numbers  of\t the
\n     candidate and  the proposer  is reflected\tin notice in
\n     form 3A,-the  office copy\tof which is Ext. P-3 and the
\n     original taken  away from the notice board and produced
\n     by the  election petitioners  has been  marked as Ex.P-
\n     10”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  statement by  PW.4, the High Court was
\nright in  its  conclusion  that\t the  respective  nomination
\npapers contained the correct serial numbers in the electoral
\nroll of\t the proposer  in each\tof  them.  These  nomination
\npapers were  made over\tby the\tAssistant Returning  Officer
\nbetween 9  and 9.30  A.M. to the Naib Tashsildar incharge of
\nelections on  December 1,1983,\tunder instructions  from the
\nReturning Officer.  December 1, 1983, was the date appointed
\nfor scrutiny  and  as  the  evidence  shows,  the  Assistant
\nReturning Officer  was not available at the time of scrutiny
\nas deposed to by him as also by the Returning Officer. There
\nis no  evidence that  the nomination  papers were handled by
\nthe Naib  Tahsildar, Elections,\t and the Kanungo, Elections,
\nas also\t other members of the staff at the time when form 3A
\nwas typed  out. Even  when the\twork of\t scrutiny began\t the
\nnomination papers  which were 45 in number were taken by the
\ncandidates and their agents for inspection and for some time
\nthey  were   handled  by  them.\t We  have  looked  into\t the
\nnomination papers  with great  care but by merely looking at
\nthem it is difficult to say at what point of time the figure
\n‘1’ has\t been inserted\tin the prescribed column against the
\nproposer’s serial  number in  both of  them. When admittedly
\nthe nomination\tpapers have been handled by the staff in the
\nestablishment of the Returning Officer and by the candidates
\nand
\n598<\/span>
\ntheir agents  before scrutiny  began,  it  is  difficult  to
\nascribe\t the  insertion\t of  figure  ‘1’  to  the  Returning
\nOfficer. We agree with the High Court that for the effective
\nfunctioning of\tdemocracy in  a large  polity  as  ours\t the
\nelection process  has  got  to\tbe  free  from\tblemish\t and
\nofficers in  whom trust\t has been  reposed  to\tconduct\t the
\nelectoral process  in  a  fair\tand  decent  way  cannot  be
\npermitted to  hobnob or\t interpolate with valuable documents
\nlike  nomination  papers.  At  the  same  time\tit  must  be
\nremembered that\t the credibility of public officers assigned
\nthe sacred trust should not be doubted on mere suspicion and
\nwithout acceptable  evidence. The  conclusion  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt that  the\t Returning  Officer  either  by\t himself  or
\nthrough somebody  caused the  interpolation to\tbe  done  is
\ntotally unwarranted  even if  we accept\t as a  fact that the
\nfigure ‘1’  appearing before  the rest\tof the number of the
\ncolumn for serial number in the electoral roll was not there
\nwhen  the   nomination\tpapers\t had  been  filed.  Strictly
\nspeaking, the insertion in the instant case is a forgery and
\namounts to a criminal act. To put that responsibility on the
\nReturning Officer without cogent evidence is highly improper
\nand the conclusion of the High Court does not commend itself
\nto us.\n<\/p>\n
     The election  petitioners had  pleaded that  they\twere
\npresent before the Returning Officer when the process of the
\nscrutiny started.  They alleged\t that the  Returning Officer
\nmade an\t announcement that all the nomination papers were in
\norder and  after hearing  the  same  most  of  them  and  in
\nparticular the\ttwo candidates\twhose nomination papers were
\nrejected went  away. From  the evidence it is clear that the
\nnomination papers  were taken  up for scrutiny one after the
\nother and  the Returning  Officer has stated that he used to
\npass orders either of acceptance or rejection of each of the
\nnomination papers after due scrutiny. That position has also
\nbeen accepted  by witnesses on the election petitioners. The
\nevidence on  the  side\tof  the\t election  petitioners\tdoes
\nindicate that  the nomination papers were first shown to the
\ncandidates  and\t  their\t  agents   and\t scrutiny   followed
\nthereafter. The\t Returning Officer  has denied,\t as  already
\npointed out,  that he  had made an open declaration that all
\nthe nomination\tpapers were  in order. Mani Ram Chhapola has
\nadmitted in  his deposition  that by  2 P.M.  on the date of
\nscrutiny  the  fact  that  his\tnomination  paper  had\tbeen
\nrejected on the ground indicated has been notified to him by
\nthe Returning  Officer. If  the Returning  Officer wanted to
\nplay any  mischief he could have avoided intimating the fact
\nof rejection or at any rate delayed the same. In the absence
\nof cogent evidence on the side of the election petitions and
\naccepting the evidence of the
\n599<\/span>
\nReturning Officer  that he  had scrutinised  the  nomination
\npapers one after the other and contemporaneously accepted or
\nrejected the same by providing grounds of rejection, we hold
\nthat the  orders of  rejection nomination  papers in the two
\ncases relevant\tfor the\t appeal, contemporaneous ordered had
\nbeen made.\n<\/p>\n
     When scrutiny  was taken  up Mani\tRam Chhapola and Raj
\nTilak on  their own  showing were  not\tpresent\t before\t the
\nReturning Officer.  Similarly, the  proposers, Brij  Bhushan
\nand Upender  Kumar were\t also  absent.\tThough\tthere  is  a
\nevidence on  the side  of the  election petitioners that the
\nAssistant Returning  Officer was  present  at  the  time  of
\nscrutiny, he as P.W.4 has categorically denied that fact The
\nReturning  Officer,  RW.3  has\tstated\tthat  the  Assistant
\nReturning Officer  was not  present when he took up scrutiny
\nof the\tnomination papers.  There is  also evidence from the
\nside of\t the appellant\tthat the Assistant Returning Officer
\nwas not\t present. We  accept as\t a fact\t that the  Assistant
\nReturning Officer  was not  present at the time of scrutiny.
\nThere were 45 nomination papers to be scrutinised. It is the
\nevidence of  the Returning  Officer that  he scrutinised all
\nthe nomination\tpapers one  by one. PW.5 who is a practising
\nAdvocate  and\twas  a\tproposer  of  one  of  the  election
\npetitioners examined as PW.3 has stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “After the  departure of  some of  the people, the
\n     Returning\tOfficer\t  compared  the\t  entries   in\t the
\n     nomination\t papers\t  one  by   one\t with  the  relevant
\n     electoral rolls.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In view\t of such evidence there was no justification to hold
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of RW.4, the Returning Officer was placed
\nbefore us once by Mr. Sibal for the appellant and over again
\nby Mr. Kacker for the respondents. The Returning Officer has
\ndeposed that he passed the orders of rejection of nomination
\npapers at  the\ttime  of  scrutiny  and\t he  rejected  those
\nnomination papers  as the  serial number of the proposers as
\ndisclosed in  the  nomination  papers  did  not\t tally\twith
\nreference to the electoral roll.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  two nomination papers the Returning Officer put
\ntick marks  against the\t name of  the candidate\t as also the
\nname of\t the proposer  and specification  of the part in the
\nelectoral roll\tof the\tproposer. He  has put cross marks as
\nagainst the  serial number.  RW.3, stated  in Court: “At the
\ntime of\t scrutiny I had the nomination papers before me. The
\nelection staff, including Election Naib-\n<\/p>\n
600<\/span><\/p>\n
Teshsildar, Quanungo,  etc. were  helping me  in tracing out
\nthe relevant  entries from  other  records,  like  electoral
\nrolls etc. When after location they used to put before me, I
\nused to\t tick-mark on  the nomination papers. At the time of
\nscrutiny when  I found\tthe entries in the nomination papers
\nare correct,  I used  to  tick-mark  each  entry.  In  those
\nnomination papers  I found  the entries\t not to\t be tallying
\nwith the other records and on this basis I found those to be
\nincorrect, I  used to  put cross.”  Coming to  the  specific
\nnomination  papers,   the  witness   stated:  “I  have\tseen
\nnomination paper  Ex.P-1 of  Shri Mani Ram Chhapola. In this
\nafter reading  the name\t of Brij  Bhushan I  tick-marked  it
\nbecause that  was held\tcorrect. I  have  crossed  his\tvote
\nnumber because\tit was not found to tally with the electoral
\nroll.” The  witness again  said: “I had seen vote number 126
\nin the\trelevant voters list, which did not contain the name
\nof Brij\t Bhushan:” With\t reference to tick marks in Ext. P-1
\nwhich is  the nomination paper of Mani Ram Chhapola, we find
\nthat there  has really been no tick mark against the name of
\nBrij Bhushan,  the proposer.  If the  Returning Officer\t had
\nreally put  a tick  mark against  the name  of Brij  Bhushan
\nthere should  have been\t four tick  marks with\tpencil. As a
\nfact there  are only  three tick  marks. Mr. Kacker strongly
\ncontended that\tin view\t of the\t statement of the witness he
\nhad tick  marked the  name  of\tBrij  Bhushan  we  must\t not
\nentertain a different view by a look at the document. Having
\nseen the document with some amount of care and having looked
\ninto other nomination papers for the pattern of tick marking
\nby the Returning Officer, we have no doubts in our mind that
\nthe statement by the witness has been made out of confusion.
\nWe cannot  loss sight of the fact that the Returning Officer
\nhad accusations\t to face  and he  was possibly\tpuzzled\t and
\nbewildered when\t he was\t facing cross-examination.  The tick
\nmark appearing above the name of Brij Bhushan related to the
\ncandidate’s particulars.  As we\t have just  pointed out,  if
\nBrij Bhushan’s name had been tick marked, one more tick mark
\nshould inevitably be found in the document. Similar comments
\nare available  with reference to the nomination paper of Raj
\nTilak. The  stand adopted by Mr. Kacker, learned counsel for
\nthe election petitioners-respondents is that if Brij Bhushan
\nname had  been tick-marked,  even if  the serial  number was
\nwrong by  the time  the nomination  paper  came\t before\t the
\nReturning Officer, finding out the correct serial number was
\nnot a  problem and  the\t Returning  Officer  who  was  being
\nassisted by other public officers would have easily found it
\nout. Connected\twith this stand and the submission, reliance
\nis placed on s.36(4) of the Act which provides
\n601<\/span>
\nthat the  Returning Officer  shall not reject any nomination
\npaper on  the ground  of  any  defect  which  is  not  of  a
\nsubstantial character.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t have  already\tcome  to  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nReturning Officer  had not  ticked the names of Brij Bhushan
\nand Upender  Kumar. Mr. Kacker not being satisfied with that
\nconclusion which  we had  indicated during  hearing,  relied
\nupon the position that the Returning Officer personally knew
\nboth Brij  Bhushan and\tUpender Kumar  and there could be no
\ndifficulty in  the Returning Officer fixing them up properly
\nwith reference\tto the\telectoral roll. This aspect requires
\ncloser examination.\n<\/p>\n
     Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial
\nnumber in  the prescribed column against the proposer is for
\nthe purpose  of identifying  the proposer  and\tascertaining
\nthat he\t is competent  to propose.  The scope of scrutiny is
\nobviously to  verify the  contents of  the nomination  paper
\nwith a view to ascertaining whether the form is in order and
\nwhat is required to be complied with by the election law has
\nbeen duly complied with. This Court has repeatedly held that
\nelection proceedings  are  strict  in  nature  and  what  is
\nrequired to  be performed  in a\t particular manner has to be
\ndone as\t required and  substantial compliance has ordinarily
\nno place  while dealing\t with the  Act\tor  the\t Rules\tmade
\nthereunder. That  is why  an  exception\t has  been  made  by
\ninserting sub-s.(4) of s.36 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The Returning  Officer made  reference to the electoral
\nroll and  did not  find the name of the proposer against the
\ndisclosed serial  number in  either case. The High Court has
\ntaken the  view that  it was the obligation of the Returning
\nOfficer to verify the electoral roll and find out the serial
\nnumber,\t the   mistake,\t if  any,  was\tnot  of\t substantial
\ncharacter so as to expose the nomination papers to rejection
\nand the rejection on such a ground was improper. To cast the
\nobligation on  the Returning  Officer to  look\tthrough\t the
\nentire electoral  roll of  a particular\t part with a view to
\nfinding\t out  the  identity  of\t the  proposer\tis  not\t the
\nrequirement of\tthe law.  To read  that as  an obligation is
\nlikely to lead to a unworkable position. The prescribed form
\nof nomination  (form 2-B)  does not  require to\t specify the
\nname of\t the father  of the proposer. That actually does not
\nbecome necessary because once the name and the serial number
\nin the voters’ list are given, the cross-verification become
\neasy and  the father’s\tname is\t available in  the electoral
\nroll. In one part of the electoral roll on the average names
\nof about a thousand voters
\n602<\/span>
\nappear. Out  of one  thousand name it is quite possible that
\nthere would  be more  than one\tvoter  by  the\tsame  names.
\nIdentification of any particular voter out of such list even
\nwhen there  are more  voters with  the same name is possible
\nonly with  further reference  to the  father’s name. To cast
\nthe obligation\tof verifying  the entire electoral roll of a
\nparticular part\t is actually requiring the Returning Officer
\nto do  almost an  impossible fact. It may not be so if there
\nbe a  few candidates  and it  be a case of a by-election but
\nwhen  general  election\t takes\tplace  and  every  Returning
\nOfficer is  supposed to handle about seven or eight Assembly
\nConstituencies and  there  may\tbe  instances  of  even\t 300
\ncandidate contesting  from one\tseat as\t it happened  in the
\n1985 elections\tin the\tBelgaum\t Constituency  of  Karantaka
\nState,\tthe  Returning\tOfficer\t would\tfind  it  physically
\nimpossible to  grapple with  such a  situation. The election
\nschedule is  a\tvery  tight  one.  Under  the  law  the\t day
\nfollowing the  last day\t fixed\tfor  receipt  of  nomination
\npapers is  the date  of scrutiny and soon thereafter follows
\nthe date  fixed for withdrawal. If nomination papers are not
\nscrutinised with  due  haste  and  promptness  the  election
\nschedule may  not be  operative in  the\t strict\t manner\t and
\ndislocation are bound to follow.\n<\/p>\n
     It is not the submission of Mr. Kacker, and rightly so,
\nthat even  if the  Returning  Officer  has  not\t been  in  a
\nposition to the proposer with reference to his serial number
\nin the electoral roll, he can accept the nomination paper to
\nbe valid.  If that  to be  so, it  is the  obligation of the
\nReturning Officer to comply with the requirements of the law
\nby satisfying  himself that  the name  of the  candidate has
\nbeen proposed by a voter entitled to propose. The proviso to
\ns.33, sub-s.(4), run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Provided   that   no\t  misnomer   or\t  inaccurate
\n     description or clerical, technical or printing error in
\n     regard to\tthe name of the candidate or his proposer or
\n     any other\tperson, or in regard to any place, mentioned
\n     in the  electoral roll  or the  nomination paper and no
\n     electoral technical  or printing error in regard to the
\n     electoral roll  numbers  of  any  such  person  in\t the
\n     electoral roll  or the  nomination paper,\tshall affect
\n     the  full\toperation  of  the  electoral  roll  or\t the
\n     nomination paper  with respect  to such person or place
\n     in any case where the description in regard to the name
\n     of the  person or\tplace in  such\tas  to\tbe  commonly
\n     understood and the returning officers all permit
\n603<\/span>
\n     any such  misnomer or inaccurate description, clerical,
\n     technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in
\n     the nomination paper shall be overlooked.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The contents  of the aforesaid proviso and the provisions of
\nsub-s.(4) of  s.36 when read together make it clear that the
\nmistake with  reference to  the serial\tnumber was  such  an
\nerror in  this case  which could be corrected. Under section
\n36(1) of  the  Act,  on\t the  date  fixed  for\tscrutiny  of
\nnominations election  agents, one proposer of each candidate
\nand one\t other person  dully authorised\t in writing  by each
\ncandidate  are\tentitled  to  appear  before  the  Returning
\nOfficer,  and\tsuch  persons  are  entitled  to  reasonable
\nfacilities for\texamining the nomination papers. The purpose
\nof making  such provision  is to  facilitate  scrutiny.\t The
\npresence of candidate, his election agent and another person
\nacquainted with\t the Constituency would certainly facilitate
\nthe process  of scrutiny.  Defects covered by the proviso to
\ns.33(4) could  easily be resolved if people authorised under
\ns. 36(1) of the Act are present at the time of the scrutiny.
\nWhat could  be resolved\t or overlooked\tin case proper stops
\nwere taken  in due  time has become a major issue leading to
\nrejection of nomination papers in the instant case mainly on
\naccount of  the absence\t of the\t candidate,  their  election
\nagents\tof  persons  interested\t in  them  at  the  time  of
\nscrutiny. No  one was  available,  for\tinstance,  when\t the
\nReturning Officer  took up  the nomination paper of Mani Ram
\nChhapola, to  indicate to  the Returning  Officer  that\t his
\nserial number  in the  electoral roll was 26 and not 126. If
\nthis had  been\tpointed\t out  and  on  summary\tenquiry\t the
\nReturning Officer  was satisfied  that\tit  was\t a  mistake,
\nclerical in  natural, and  the identity\t of Brij Bhushan was
\nnot in\tdispute, there would have been end of the matter. If
\nthe correlation\t has not been made and the Returning Officer
\nhas no\tassistance to fix up the identification it cannot be
\nsaid to\t be  a\tdefect\tnot  of\t substantial  character.  We
\nreiterate that it could not be a statutory obligation of the
\nReturning Officer  to  scrutinise  the\telectoral  roll\t for
\nfinding out  the identity  of the  proposer when  the serial
\nnumber\tturns  out  to\tbe  wrong.  But\t if  interested\t and
\ncompetent persons point out to the Returning Officer that it
\nis a  mistake, it  would certainly be his obligation to look
\ninto  the   matter  to\tfind  out  whether  the\t mistake  is
\ninconsequential and  has, therefore,  either to be permitted
\nto be corrected or to be overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
     As a  result of  scrutiny nomination  papers are either
\naccepted or  rejected. Once  a nomination paper is rejected,
\nthe candidate
\n604<\/span>
\nloses his  opportunity to  contest and\tis kept out from the
\nelectoral fray.\t Every genuine\tcandidate is  expected to be
\nvery much interested in ensuring clearance of his nomination
\npaper at the stage of scrutiny. It is indeed surprising that
\nbefore scrutiny\t was done  and the  nomination\tpapers\twere
\naccepted by  the Returning  Officer, the  two candidates and
\npeople interested  in them  went  away\tfrom  the  place  of
\nscrutiny and  did not  remain  available  to  the  Returning
\nOfficer. In the circumstances, if the nomination papers have
\nbeen rejected  for mistakes  in the  nomination papers it is
\nthe candidates themselves who have to thank their lot and no
\nmistake can  be found with the Returning Officer. We may not
\nbe understood  to say that a mistake of the type if properly
\nclarified would\t not be\t unsubstantial in  character. But if
\nthe Returning  Officer is not in a position to correlate and
\nidentify the  proposer, the  mistake would indeed be not one
\nwhich can  be covered  by sub-s.(4) of s 36 of the Act. That
\nview has  been taken recently by this Court in Brij Mohan v.
\nSat Pal,<\/a>  to which  two of  us are  parties. We\t endorse the
\nratio of  the decision\tand applying the same, we agree with
\nMr. Sibal  that the  nomination papers were validly rejected
\nin this\t case. Mr.  Sibal thereafter contended that Mani Ram
\nChhapola  and\tRaj  Tilak   had  designedly  entered  wrong
\nreferences  to\tthe  electoral\troll  in  respect  of  their
\nproposers with\ta view\tto challenging\tthe election  of the
\nreturned candidate  if necessary.  The evidence on record is
\nnot impressive\tas apart  from bare  suggestions there is no
\nmaterial worth\tthe name to accept it as a fact. We are also
\nof the\tview that once we have reached the conclusion in the
\nmanner indicated above, it is totally unnecessary to go into
\nsuch an aspect. On the analysis indicated, the view taken by
\nthe High  Court cannot\tbe sustained.  We allow\t the appeal,
\nvacate the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and\t uphold\t the
\nelection of the appellant as the returned candidate from the
\nConstituency in question. The appellant shall be entitled to
\nhis costs  before the  High Court as also before this Court.
\nHearing fee in this Court is assessed at. Rs. 3,000
\nM.L.A.\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
605<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 1073, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 592 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: LILA KRISHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: MANI RAM GODARA & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1985 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\"},\"wordCount\":4368,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\",\"name\":\"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985","datePublished":"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985"},"wordCount":4368,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985","name":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T22:03:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lila-krishan-vs-mani-ram-godara-ors-on-8-may-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lila Krishan vs Mani Ram Godara & Ors on 8 May, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}