{"id":262653,"date":"1999-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999"},"modified":"2016-07-10T20:43:55","modified_gmt":"2016-07-10T15:13:55","slug":"baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, K. Venkataswami<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  622 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nBABURAO\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANIKRAO AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/05\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR & K. VENKATASWAMI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 (3) SCR 547<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
K.VENKATASWAMI, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Election Petition No, 4\/95
\non the file of Bombay High CoUart (Aurangabad Bench), this appeal is filed
\nby the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
In January, 1995 the elections to the Maharashtra State Legislative
\nAssembly were held. The appellant and the first respondent alongwith others
\nhad filed nominations to contest from 211 Nilnage Assembly Constituency,
\nLatur District, The appellant raised objections before the Returning
\nOfficer (Respondent No, 2 ) to the candidature of first respondent.
\nAccording to the appellant, as the first respondent’s name was appearing in
\nthe electoral rolls of 211 Nilanga Assembly Constituency and also 206 Latur
\nAssembly Constituency, he could not be an elector in both the
\nconstituencies and, therefore, his nomination has to be rejected. After
\nhearing the parties, the Returning Officer overruled the objections of the
\nappellant by an order dated 19.1.1995. A revision filed before the Chief
\nElectoral Officer, Maharashtra State, was also not successful. The
\nReturning Officer announced the result of the 211 Nilanga Constituency on
\n12.3.1996 by declaring that the first respondent was elected from that
\nconstituency.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent by filing an
\nElection Petition. The main challenge in the election petition was on the
\nground that the first respondent’s name appears in two assembly
\nconstituencies and as such he has incurred disqualification under the law
\nrelating to election of membere to the Legislative Assembly. It was also
\ncontended by the appellant that the first respondent was not “ordinarily
\nresident” within the meaning of Section 20<\/a> of the Representation of People
\nAct, 1950 (hereinafter called the “1950 Act”) in Nilanga Constituency and,
\ntherefore, not qualified to contest the election from the said
\nConstituency. It was further contended that the objection raised by him
\nbefore the Returning Officer was wrongfully and illegally turned down.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent contested the Election Petition denying all the
\nobjections raised by the appellant. According to the first respondent, his
\nname finds a place in the electoral roll for the Nilanga constituency and,
\ntherefore it was not open to the appellant to raise the objection that he
\nwas not an ordinary resident of any the villages coming under Nilanga
\nConstituency. According to the first respondent, he was not disqualified to
\ncontest from Nilanga Constituency as contended by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Before the learned Judge, the parties have agreed that two issues can be
\nframed as preliminary issues and on those issues no oral or documentary
\nevidence need be adduced. Accordingly, the following issues were framed :.-\n<\/p>\n
“(1) Do the entries of the name of the respondent No.1 in two Assembly
\nConstituencies entail any disqualification and does the election become
\nvoid on that count?\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Is the petition tenable in the absence of essential or necessary
\nparties?\n<\/p>\n
(3) What Order?”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge on the basis of the submissions made before him answered
\nthe first issue in the negative and the second issue affirmatively.
\nAccordingly, under the third issue he dismissed the election petition.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. O.P. Rana, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended
\nthat the High Court should have held accepting the case of the appellant
\nthat in view of the first respondent’s name appearing in the electoral
\nrolls of two constituencies, namely, 206 and 211, he was not eligible to
\ncontest the election-from Nilanga Constituency. According to the learned
\nSr. Counsel that on a conjoint reading of relevant provisions of the
\nRepresentation of People Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
1950 and 1951, the High Court should have held that the first respondent
\nwas not qualified to be chposen as he was not eligible to contest the
\nelection and as such the election was void ab initio, In other words, the
\ncontention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the
\nfirst respondents’s name having been found in the electoral roil of more
\nthan one constituency, he has incurred the disqualification from being
\ncontested and his nomination ought to have ben rejected when objection was
\nraised by the appellant before the Returning Officer. In support of that
\ncontention, he placed reliance on Section 5(c)<\/a> of 1951 Act read with
\nSection  2(l)(e)<\/a> of the. same Act; He also placed reliance on Section 33(5)<\/a>
\nread with Section 36(2)(b)<\/a> of the 1951 Act and contended that the failure
\non the part of the first respondent to produce the electoral roll of 206
\nLatur Assembly Constituency wherein his name finds a place, the Returning
\nOfficer ought to have rejected the nomination of the first respondent
\naccepting the objection raised by the appellant. According to the learned
\nSr. Counsel, the High Court erred in holding that Sections 17<\/a> and 18<\/a> of
\n1950 Act are not mandatory but only directory. He placed reliance on Sher
\nSingh Budh Singh & Anr, v. The State of Punjab & Ors<\/a>., AIR (1965) Punjab
\n361 and Anandrao Sitaram Npgmote & Anr. v.Shri S.P. Mohonj & Ors,, ILR
\n(1967) Bom. Series (1358). He also invited our attention to Jagannaih R.
\nNunekar v. Genu Goyind Kadam<\/a>, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 55, Rosamma Punnose V.
\nBalakrishnan Nair, AIR (1958) Kerala 154, Mohammed Rafique v. S.M. Pagnis,
\nDistrict Judge, Bhind & Anr<\/a>,, AIR (1960) M,P. 369 and Lila Krishan v.Mani
\nRam Godara<\/a>, [1985] Supp. I SCC 179.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S.M. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, in
\nreply to the contentions of the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted that so long as the name of the first respondent finds a place in
\nthe electoral roll of Nilanga Constituency and the nomination of the first
\nrespondent was filed on that basis, the question of production of electorai
\nroll relating to 206 Latur Constituency did not arise and the reliance
\nplaced on Section, 33(5) of<\/p>\n
1951  Act was misconceived. According to the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe first respondent, the objections as to the inclusion of first
\nrespondent’s name in 2-11 Nilanga Constituency, if at all, ought to have
\nbeen raised before his name was validly included in the electoral rolls of
\nthat constituency. Once the name finds a place in the electoral roll
\nvalidly published, the same cannot be challenged on any ground to oppose
\nthe nomination when filed from that constituency. In support of that he
\nplaced reliance on a judgment of this Court in B.M. Ramaswamy v.
\nB.M.Krishna Murthy & Ors<\/a>., [1963] 3 SCR 479. It was the contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the first respondent that this Court has repeatedly
\nheld that the right to contest an election is only a statutory right and
\nthe right to challenge an election is also circumscribed by the provisions
\nof 1951 Act on the grounds mentioned in Section 100<\/a> of that Act and In no
\nother manner. In support of that, he placed reliance on a decision of the
\nConstitution Bench Of this Court in Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v. B.B.
\nRaja & Ors<\/a>. [1974] 3 SCC 415. The learned counsel also invited our
\nattention to Rangilal Chaudhari v. Dhau Sao & Ors., [1962] 2 SCR 401, Rdfiq
\nKhan & Anr. v.LaxminarayanI Sharma<\/a>, [1997] 2 SCC 228 and Indrajeet baruah.
\netc. etc. v. Election Commissioner of India, AIR (1984) SC 1912,<\/p>\n
We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute and cannot
\nbe disputed that the name of the first respondent finds a place in the
\nelectoral roll of 206 Latur Constituency as well as in the electoral rolls
\nof 211 Nilanga Constituency. We, therefore, proceed on that basis. The
\nissue is whether the appearance of the name of the first respondent in two
\nconstituencies is a disqualification to contest from any one of the
\nConstituencies under any of the provisions of the Representation of the
\nPeople Act<\/a>, 1950 or 1951, At this juncture it will be useful to set out the
\nrelevant provisions of the 1950 and 1951 Act :-\n<\/p>\n
The Representation of the People Act<\/a>, 1950<\/p>\n
Section 16- Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll :-(l) A
\nperson shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he –\n<\/p>\n
(a)  is not a citizen of India; or<\/p>\n
(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or<\/p>\n
(c)  is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of
\nany law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with
\nelections.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The name of “the any person who becomes so disqualified after
\nregistration shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll in which it
\nis included;\n<\/p>\n
[Provided that the name of any person struck off the electoral roll of a
\nconstituency by reason of a disqualification under clause (c) of sub-
\nsection (1) shall forth with be re-instated in that roll if such
\ndisqualification is, during the period such roll is in force; removed under
\nany law authorizing such removal.]<\/p>\n
Section 17- No person to be registered in more than one constituency – No
\nperson shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more
\nthan one constituency;\n<\/p>\n
Section 18<\/a> – No person to be registered more than once in any constituency\n<\/p>\n
– No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, for
\nany constituency more than once.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19<\/a> – Conditions of registration – Subject to the foregoing
\nprovisions of this Part, every person who –\n<\/p>\n
(a)  is not less than [eighteen years] of age on the qualifying date, and<\/p>\n
(b)  is ordinarily resident in a constituency, shall be entitled to be
\nregistered in the electoral roil for that constituency.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20<\/a> – Meaning of “ordinarily resident”-\n<\/p>\n
[1] A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a
\nconstituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of,
\ndwelling house therein.\n<\/p>\n
(1 A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary-
\nresidence shall hot by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident
\ntherein,<\/p>\n
(IB) A Member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall not
\nduring the term of his office cease to be ordinarily resident in the
\nconstituency in the electoral roll of which he is registered as an
\nelectoral at the time of his election as such member, by reason of his
\nabsence: from that constituency in connection with his duties as such
\nmember.]<\/p>\n
(2) A person who is a patient in any establishment maintained wholly or
\nmainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental
\nillness or mental defectiveness, or who is detained in prison or other
\nlegal custody at any place, shaft not by reason thereof be deemed to be
\nordinarily resident therein.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Any person haying a service qualification shall be deemed to be
\nordinarily resident on any date in the constituency in which, but for
\nhaving such service qualification, he would have been ordinarily resident
\non that date]<\/p>\n
(4) Any person holding any office in India declared by the President in
\nconsultation with the Election Commission to be an office to which the
\nprovisions of this sub-section apply, shall be deemed to be ordinarily
\nresident on any date in the constituency in which, but for holding of any
\nsuch office, he would have been ordinarily resident on that date.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  The statement of any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3)
\nor sub-section (4) made in the prescribed form and verified in the
\nprescribed manner, that [but for his having the service qualification] or
\nbut for his holding any such office as is referred to in sub-section; (4)
\nhe would have been ordinarily resident in a specified place on any date,
\nshall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be accepted as correct].\n<\/p>\n
(6) The wife of any such person as is referred to in sub-section (3) or
\nsub-section (4) shall if she be ordinarily residing with such person be
\ndeemed to be ordinarily resident on in the constituency specified by such
\nperson under sub-section (5).\n<\/p>\n
(7)  If in any ease a question arises as to where a person is ordinarily
\nresident at any relevant time the question shall be determined with
\nreference to all the facts of the case and to such rules as may be made in
\nthis behalf by the Central Government in consultation with the Election
\nCommission.]<\/p>\n
(8)  In sub-sections (3) and (5) “service qualification” means-fa)   being
\na member of the armed forces of the Union; or<\/p>\n
(b)    being a member of a force to which the provisions of the Army Act<\/a>,
\n1950 (46 of 1950) have been made applicable whether with or without
\nmodifications; or<\/p>\n
(c)     being member of an armed police force of a State, who is serving
\noutside that State or<\/p>\n
(d)    being a person who is employed under the Government of India, in a
\npost outside India.\n<\/p>\n
The Representation of the People Act<\/a>, 1951<\/p>\n
Section 2<\/a> – Interpretation – (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\nrequires,-\n<\/p>\n
(e) “elector” in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is
\nentered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in
\nforce and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in
\nSection 16<\/a> of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950)<\/p>\n
Section 5<\/a> – Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly -A
\nperson shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
\nLegislative Assembly of a State unless –\n<\/p>\n
 (a)….\n<\/p>\n
(b) …..\n<\/p>\n
(c)  in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Assembly
\nconstituency in that State:\n<\/p>\n
[Provided that for the period referred to in clause (2) of Article 371-A<\/a>, a
\nperson shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill any seat allocated to
\nthe Tuensang district in the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland unless he is
\na member of the regional council referred to in that Article],<\/p>\n
Section 32<\/a> – Nomination of candidates for election :,-\n<\/p>\n
Any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat if
\nhe is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the
\nConstitution and this Act for under the provisions of the Government of
\nUnion Territories Act<\/a>, 1963 (20 of 1963), as the case may be.]<\/p>\n
Section 33<\/a> – Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid
\nnomination –\n<\/p>\n
(5) Where the candidate is an elector of different constituency, a copy of
\nthe electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or
\na certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless it has
\nbeen filed along with the nomination paper, be produced before the
\nreturning officer at the time of scrutiny. Section 36<\/a> – Scrutiny of
\nnominations –\n<\/p>\n
(1)………\n<\/p>\n
(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination papers and
\nshall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may,
\neither on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry,
\nif any as he thinks necessary, [reject] any nomination on any of the
\nfollowing grounds :-\n<\/p>\n
[(a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate]
\neither is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the
\nseat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely
\n::-\n<\/p>\n
Articles 84, 102,173 and 191.\n<\/p>\n
[Part II of this Act, and sections 4<\/a> and 14<\/a> of the Government of Union
\nTerritories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or<\/p>\n
(b)  that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of
\nSection 33<\/a> or Section 34<\/a>; or<\/p>\n
(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination
\npaper is not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the
\nground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.\n<\/p>\n
(5)..,……\n<\/p>\n
(6)…,..\n<\/p>\n
(7) For the purposes of this Section, a certified copy of an entry in the
\nelectoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be
\nconclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry
\nis an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject
\nto a disqualification mentioned in section 16<\/a> of the Representation of the
\nPeople Act, 1950 (43 of 1950).\n<\/p>\n
Section 100<\/a> – Grounds for declaring election to be void –\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court] is of
\nopinion –\n<\/p>\n
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not
\nqualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the
\nConstitution or this Act [or the Government of Union Territories Act<\/a>, 1963
\n(20 of 1963] ; or<\/p>\n
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or
\nhis election agent or by any other person with consent of a returned
\ncandidate or his election agent; or<\/p>\n
(c)  that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or<\/p>\n
(d)  that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned
\ncandidate, has been materially affected –\n<\/p>\n
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or<\/p>\n
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned
\ncandidate [by an agent other than his election agent], or<\/p>\n
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the
\nreception of any vote which is void, or<\/p>\n
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of
\nthis Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act,<\/p>\n
[the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be
\nvoid.]<\/p>\n
(2) If in the opinion of [the High Court], a returned candidate has been
\nguilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice
\nbut [the High Court] is satisfied –\n<\/p>\n
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the
\ncandidate or his election agent, and every Such corrupt practice was comm
\nitted contrary to the orders, and [without the consent], of the candidate
\nor his election agent;\n<\/p>\n
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for
\npreventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and<\/p>\n
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt
\npractice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then [the High
\nCourt] may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.\n<\/p>\n
“Article173 -Qualification for membership of the State Legislature -A
\nperson shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
\nLegislature of a State unless he –\n<\/p>\n
[(a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person
\nauthorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation
\naccording to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule;]<\/p>\n
(b)  is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than
\ntwenty-five years of age and, in the case of a seat in the Legislative
\nCouncil not less than thirty years of age; and<\/p>\n
(c)  possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that
\nbehalf by or under any law made by Parliament”\n<\/p>\n
Article 191 –<\/a> Disqualification for membership -(1)’ A person shall be
\ndisqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the
\nLegislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State-\n<\/p>\n
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the
\nGovernment of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an
\noffice declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify is
\nholder;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  if he is Of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  if he is an undischarged insolvent;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the
\ncitizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of
\nallegiance or adherence to a foreign State;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
[Explanation – For the purposes of this clause], a person shall not be
\ndeemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the
\ngovernment of any State specified in the first Schedule by reason only that
\nhe is a Minister either for the Union or for such State.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative
\nAssembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under
\nthe Tenth Schedule.]”\n<\/p>\n
Before we proceed further, we shall set out in brief the view expressed by
\nthe High Court. The learned Judge has set out the objection raised by the
\nappellant as follows ;-\n<\/p>\n
“The main objection by the petitioner to the election of the respondent no.
\n1 is that the Returned Candidate namely respondent no. 1 was enrolled as
\nelector (Voter) in Assembly constituency No, 206 i.e. Latur Assembly
\nConstituency and Assembly Constituency No. 211 i.e. Nilanga Assembly
\nConstituency, and according to the petitioner, the appearance of name of
\nthe respondent no, 1 in two constituencies is disqualification under
\nsection 16<\/a> of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge after noticing me provisions of Sections .1.4 to 25 of
\nthe 1950 Act and also noticing the provisions in Chapter II’ and III of
\n1951 Act held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“It is the ease of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 is disqualified
\nfrom contesting election and getting elected to the State Assembly because
\nof appearance of his name in more than one constituency. The
\ndisqualification on this ground does not find place in any of the above
\nprovisions of law.\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute in the present case that at the time of the scrutiny
\nof the nomination papers, the present petitioner had raised similar
\nobjections against the respondent no. 1 and it is also undisputed that the
\nReturning Officer – respondent no. 2 overruled all the objections by order
\ndated 19,1. 1995. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner took
\nup the matter to the Chief Electoral Officer of the Maharashtra State in
\nrevision, which came to be dismissed by an Order dated 23. 1. 1995,”\n<\/p>\n
In the Course of the judgment under appeal the learned Judge after noticing
\nArticles 173 and 191 of the Constitution of India observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“It may further be noted that the nomination of a candidate can be rejected
\non the ground of disqualification mentioned in Section 16<\/a> of the Act, 1950
\nand disqualification mentioned under Article 173<\/a> and 191<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India. Section 100<\/a> of the Act of 1951 mentions the grounds
\nfor declaring the elections to be void and if the Returned candidate was
\nnot qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill in the seat on the
\ndate of election, the election can be declared void. Further, improper
\nrejection of nomination is also a ground to declare the election to be
\nvoid. The petitioner does not allege any of such grounds for declaring the
\nelection to be void. It may also be stated at this juncture that the Court
\ncannot go into the question as to whether the names of certain persons were
\nentered `illegally as laid down by the Supreme Court in case of S..K.
\nChaudhari v. Baidhyanath, AIR (1973) SC 717.”\n<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the learned Judge reached the following conclusion :-\n<\/p>\n
“Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any objection before the
\nelectoral registration officer about inclusion of the name of the
\nrespondent no. 1 in this Constituency. Section 100<\/a> of the Act of 1951
\ndiscloses the grounds for challenging the election of returned candidate
\nand the present petition fails to disclose any of the grounds mentioned in
\nthe said Section. In view of the above discussion, it, therefore, cannot be
\nheld that the appearance of name of the respondent no. 1 in two Assembly
\nConstituencies entails any disqualification and as such, election of
\nrespondent No. 1 cannot be declared void on the count. Issue No. 1 is,
\ntherefore, answered in negative.”\n<\/p>\n
Oh a careful perusal of the relevant provisions, as extracted above, we are
\nof the view that the High Court was right in rejecting the contention of
\nthe appellant that the first respondent was disqualified to contest the
\nNilanga Constituency as his name was found in two constituencies. We
\ngenerally agree with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court. However,
\nwe are not in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that Sections
\n17<\/a> and 18<\/a> of 1950 Act are not mandatory. For the purposes of 1950 Act they
\nare mandatory. For example, to object to the inclusion of the name in the
\nelectoral roll.\n<\/p>\n
There is nothing to suggest in Section 16<\/a> of the 5950 Act that if a
\nperson’s name finds a place in more than one constituency that would
\nautomatically entail disqualification from contesting in any one of the
\nconstituencies. It is relevant to note that Section 2(1)(e)<\/a> of 1951 Act
\nrefers disqualification under Section 16<\/a> of 1950 Act alone while
\ninterpreting the word `Elector’ and has not mentioned any contravention
\nSection 17<\/a> as disqualification. No doubt. Section 17<\/a> of 1950 Act expressly
\nstates that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral
\nroll for more than one constituency. But if a person’s name finds a place
\nin more than one constituency, does it automatically entailthe
\ndisqualificationunder Section 16<\/a>? We do not think so. Objection under
\nSection 17<\/a> could have been successfully raised to prevent respondent no. l
\n`s name from being included in Nitanga Constituency.\n<\/p>\n
Likewise, a reading of other sections also does not come to the help of the
\nappellant to sustain his contention. We are Unable to find any ground after
\nreading Section 16<\/a> of the 1950 Act and Articles 173 and 191 of the
\nConstitution of India to hold that then nomination of the first respondent
\nought to have been rejected. The contention based on Section 33<\/a> (5) of the
\n1951 Act is misconceived. As the respondent no.l did not file his
\nnomination to the 211 Nilanga Constituency on the basis of his name finding
\na place in 206 Latur Constituency. On the other hand he filed the
\nnomination to 211 Nilanga Constituency, that being the position, the
\ncontention based on Section 33<\/a> (5) cannot be accepted and the citations
\nhave no relevance. Likewise, after reading Section 100<\/a> of the 1951 Act we
\nare unable to declare the election of the First respondent void under any
\none of the grounds set out therein. It is not in dispute that the appellant
\ndid hot raise any objection before the Electoral Registration Officer about
\ninclusion of the name of the first respondent in 211 Nilnaga Constituency,
\nAfter carefully going through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant, we find that they have no application to the facts Of this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the
\nHigh Court in dismissing the Election Petition. The appeal fails and is
\ndismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, K. Venkataswami CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 622 of 1998 PETITIONER: BABURAO RESPONDENT: MANIKRAO AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/05\/1999 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR & K. VENKATASWAMI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 (3) SCR 547 The Judgment of the Court was […]<\/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-262653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - 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\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-10T15:13:55+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-10T15:13:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4347,\"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\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\",\"name\":\"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-10T15:13:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - 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\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-10T15:13:55+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-10T15:13:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999"},"wordCount":4347,"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\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999","name":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-10T15:13:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baburao-vs-manikrao-and-anr-on-13-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baburao vs Manikrao And Anr on 13 May, 1999"}]},{"@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\/262653","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=262653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262653\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}