Skip to content


Godha Ram S/O Ch. Karam Chand Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 411 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1966P& H33
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Punjab Panchayat Samitis Primary Members (Election) Rules - Rule 9(1)
AppellantGodha Ram S/O Ch. Karam Chand
RespondentState of Punjab and ors.
Advocates: Naresh Chander Jain, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - the decision, rejecting or accepting the nomination paper, and a brief statement of reasons thereof, shall be endorsed on the nomination paper and signed by the returning officer, provided that the returning officer may--(a) permit any clerical error, in the nomination paper, in regard to names or numbers, to be corrected in order to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll; ' a bare reading of this rule would show that the present case was clearly covered by proviso (a) of this rule and by not permitting the clerical error in the nomination paper in..........filed by godha ram challenging the legality of the order, dated 15-1-1965 passed by the returning officer, panchayat samiti, kamal block, district kamal, respondent no. 3, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner.2. the petitioner is a sarpanch of gram panchayat, debarki in karnal block. he was, therefore, a voter and his name appeared in the electoral roll prepared for the election to the panchayat samiti. he filed his nomination papers for the election of the primary members of this samiti before the returning officer, respondent no. 3, on 14-1-1965. the same was rejected by him on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, that is, 15-1-1965, on the ground that the vote number of his proposer was given as 28 (6), whereas it should have been 26 (3) according to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.C. Pandit, J.

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Godha Ram challenging the legality of the order, dated 15-1-1965 passed by the Returning Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kamal Block, District Kamal, respondent No. 3, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Debarki in Karnal Block. He was, therefore, a voter and his name appeared in the electoral roll prepared for the election to the Panchayat Samiti. He filed his nomination papers for the election of the Primary Members of this Samiti before the Returning Officer, respondent No. 3, on 14-1-1965. The same was rejected by him on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, that is, 15-1-1965, on the ground that the vote number of his proposer was given as 28 (6), whereas it should have been 26 (3) according to the electoral roll. It is alleged by the petitioner that at the time of the scrutiny, he requested respondent No. 3 to permit him to correct this clerical error, which he was competent to do under Rule 9 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis Primary Members (Election) Rules, but his request was not acceded to by respondent No. 3 and his nomination paper was rejected. As a result, he was debarred from contesting the membership of the Panchayat Samiti. This election was held on 22-1-1965 and Gurdeep Singh and others, respondents Nos. 4 to 28, were duly elected. This led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. It may be mentioned that one of the respondents, namely, Shiv Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nandi, Tehsil and District Karnal, respondent No. 6, had not been served. Counsel for the petitioner, before the arguments started, prayed that his name should be struck off the record. I order accordingly.

4. Rule 9, mentioned above, runs thus--'Rule 9 (1) The Returning Officer shall examine papers at the time appointed in this behalf, hear objections, if any, presented by the objectors in person, to the eligibility of any candidate and determine these objections after such enquiry as he may consider necessary. The decision, rejecting or accepting the nomination paper, and a brief statement of reasons thereof, shall be endorsed on the nomination paper and signed by the Returning Officer, Provided that the Returning Officer may--

(a) permit any clerical error, in the nomination paper, in regard to names or numbers, to be corrected in order to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll; and

(b) where necessary, direct that any clerical error or printing error in the said entries shall be ignored.

(2) The person objecting under Sub-rule (1) must be an elector.'

A bare reading of this Rule would show that the present case was clearly covered by proviso (a) of this Rule and by not permitting the clerical error in the nomination paper in regard to the vote number to be corrected in order to bring it in conformity with the corresponding entry in the electoral roll, respondent No. 3, had clearly committed an error of law, which is patent on the record. His order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

5. The writ petition, consequently, succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed. Since the respondents are not represented before me, there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //