DEVENDRA PATELversusRAM PAL SINGH & ORS.

                    [2013] 10 S.C.R. 291


                    DEVENDRA PATEL                               A
                              v.
                 RAM PAL SINGH & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2013)

                   SEPTEMBER 6; 2013
                                                                 B
       [R.M. LODHA AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

     Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 79(b) and
82(b) - Person whose nomination rejected, whether can be
considered as a 'candidate' for the purpose of s.82(b) - Held:   C
Where nomination of person is rejected on the ground of such
person being disqualified, he is neither a duly nominated
candidate nor he can claim to be duly nominated candidate,
within the meaning of s. 79(b) ~ Therefore, he cannot be
considered as 'candidate' for the purpose of s.82(b).            D

    The question for consideration in the present appeal
was whether the person whose nomination was rejected,
must be considered as a 'candidate' for the purpose of
s. 82(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
                                                                 E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: The question whether a person is a
'.candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of
Representation of the People Act, 1951 would depend on           F
whether he is a 'candidate' within the meaning of Section
79(b). Since nomination of 'J' was, rejected as he was
                                     /

disqualified, he cannot be considered to be duly
nominated as a candidate at the election. The expression
"claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at            G
any election" in Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act, would not
take within its fold a person whose nomination has been
rejected as being disqualified. Thus, where the
nomination of a person is rejected by the returning officer
                             291                                 H
    292      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   on the ground of such person being disqualified, such
    person is neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can
    claim to be duly nominated as a candidate. In view of this
    position, 'J' is not covered by the expression 'candidate'
    in either of the two categories within the meaning of
B   Section 79(b). Therefore, 'J' cannot be treated as a
    'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of the 1951
    Act. [Paras 5, 8, 9 and 1OJ [293-E; 294-D-F; 295-B-D]

        ' Mohan Raj vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia and Ors. (1969)
    1· SCR 630 - distinguished.
c
        Mithilesh Kumar Sinha vs. Returning Officer for
    Presidentia/Election and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 20: 1992 (1)
    Suppl. SCR 651 - referred to.

D                        Case Law Reference: ·
          (1969) 1 SCR 630            distinguished     Para. 9
          1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 651      referred to      Para 3
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E   7907 of 2013.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2010 of the
    High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur
    in Election Petition No. 16 of 2009.
F
          Saurabh Suman Sinha, Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant.
                                                          •
        Vikramjit Banerjee, S.S. Shamshery, V.M. Vishnu, R.C.
    Kohli for the Respondent.

G         .The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          R.M. LODH~, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. The only argument canvassed by the learned counsel
    for the appellant is that Jaswant Singh whose nomination was
H   rejected must be regarded as a 'candidate' for the purpose
     DEVENDRA PATEL v. RAM PAL SINGH & ORS.                  293
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]

of Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951      A
(for short, '1951 Act') and since he has not been joined as a
party respondent in the election petition although there is
allegation of corrupt practice against him, the election petition
is liable to be rejected.
                                                                    B
     3. The High Court has considered this question and,
relying upon the decision of this Court in Mithilesh Kumar
Sinha Vs. Returning Officer for Presidential Election &
Others1 , held that Jaswant Singh could not be regarded as a
'candidate' as defined in Section 79(b) for the purpose of
Section 82(b) and overruled the objection regarding non-joinder     C
of Jaswant Singh.

     4. The admitted fact is that Jaswant Singh's nomination
was rejected by the returning officer as he w.as ·found to be
disqualified. Jaswant Singh challenged the order of the returning   D
officer rejecting his nomination in a Writ Petition before the
High Court, but that Writ Petition was not taken to the logical
conclusion and it was dismissed.

     5. The question is, whether Jaswant Singh is a 'candidate'
                                                                    E
for the purpose of Section 82(b) ? The answer to this would
depend on whether he is a 'candidate' within the meaning of
Section 79(b).

      6. Section 79(b) reads as follows :-
                                                                    F
      "79. Definitions.? In this Part and in Part VII unless the
      context otherwise requires,-

      (a)   xx                    x

      (b) "candidate" means a person who has been or claims         G
      to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any
      election;

      (c)   xx                    x
1.   AIR 1993 SC 20.                                                H
    294         SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         (d)    xx                  x
          (e)    xx                  x

          (f)    xx
B         7. Section 82(b) reads as under:-

          "82. Parties to the petition.? A petitioner shall join as
          respondents to his petitioner ?

          (a)    xx                  x               ••
c
          (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any
          corrupt practice are made in the petition."

       8. In our opinion, in view of the admitted position that
  Jaswant Singh's nomination was rejected as he was
0
  disqualified, he cannot be considered to be duly nominated as
  a candidate at the election. Learned counsel for the appellant
  submits that his contention is founded on the expression
  "claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any
  election" in Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act. The expression
E "claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate" would
  not take within its fold a person whose nomination has been
  rejected as being disqualified. Such person cannot claim to be
  duly nominated as a candidate when he is not qualified to
  contest election. In view of this position, Jaswant Singh is not
F covered by the expression 'candidate' in either of the two
  categories within the meaning of Section 79(b).

       9. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision
  of this Court in Mohan Raj Vs. Surendra Kumar Taparia &
G Ors. 2 in support of his contention. Mohan Raj2 was a case
  where one R.D. Periwal who was duly nominated candidate but
  withdrew his nomination later was not joined as a party in the
  election petition though allegations of corrupt practice against
  him were made. This Court held that a candidate who is duly
H 2. (1969) 1 scr 630.
   DEVENDRA PATEL v. RAM PAL SINGH & ORS.                   29$
              [R.M. LODHA, J.]

nominated continues to be candidate for the purpose of Section     A
82(b) in spite of withdrawal. There is an Important difference
between that case and this case. In that case, R.D. Periwal
was dujy nominated candidate but he withdrew later, whereas
here Jaswant Singh's nomination was rejected as he was found
to be disqualified. For this crucial and compelling difference,    B
the statement of law in Mohan Raj2 has no application. Where
the nomination of a person is rejected by the returning officer
on the ground of such person being disqualified, in our view,
such person is neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can
claim to be duly nominated as a candidate.                         C

     10. The High Court did not commit any error in not treating
Jaswant Singh as a 'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b)
of the 1951 Act.

    11. Appeal is disrnisse~ with no order as to costs.            o
K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.