RAM BHUALversusAMBIKA SINGH

                              RAMBHUAL                                           A
                                  v.
                             AMBIKA SINGH

                           SEPTEMBER 29, 2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]                   B

      Election Laws:

      Representation of the People Act, 1951:
                                                                                 c
      Sections 33(4) and 36(4)-Nomination paper-Rejection of-Election
petition-Returned candidate's election challenged by defeated candidate
on the plea that the Returning Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations,
had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate-
1ndependent candidate had to be proposed by at least ten qualified persons-      D
While furnishing details of qualified persons, the ninth proposer was shown
as Serial No. 392 in the voters' list-Returning Officer on finding that Serial
No. 392 in the voters' list was not the ninth proposer rejected the nomination
of the independent candidate-Name of the ninth proposer was at Serial No.
352 on the same page of the voters' list as Serial No. 392-The independent
candidate pointed out to the Returning Officer that Serial No. shown was         E
only an error which was liable to be overlooked-High Court declared the
e/ec/ion of the returned candidate void under S. 100(/)(c)-Correctness of-
Held: Under S. 36(4) the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination
paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character-
The defect being only an error in the Serial No. and that the ninth proposer     F
was actually at Serial No. 352 on the same page of the voters' list is a minor
defect which could have been got corrected or could even have been
overlooked-The nomination paper could not have been rejected on that
ground-High Court's judgment affirmed.

      The appellant's election to the State Legislative Assembly was             G
challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, under Section IOO(l)(c)
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The plea was that the Returning
Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had wrongly rejected the
nomination of an independent candidate.

                                     693                                         H
    694                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         The independent candidate had to be proposed by at least ten qualified
    persons. While iurnishing the details of the qualified persons, the ninth
    proposer was shown as Serial No. 392 in the Voters' list. The Returning
    Officer on finding that Serial No. 392 in the Voters' list was not the ninth
    proposer, straightaway rejected the nomination of the appellant. The name of
    the ninth proposer was at Serial No. 352 of the same page of the Voters' list
B   as Serial No. 392. The independent candidate pointed out that this was a minor
    error in terms of Sections 33(4) and 36(4) of the Act which was liable to be
    overlooked and his nomination accepted.

          The High Court allowed the election petition on the ground that the
    rejection of the nomination of the independent candidate was improper and
C   declared the election of the appellant as void under Section 1OO(l)(c) of the
    Act. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: I. It is clear that the rejection of the nomination of the
    independent candidate by the Returning Officer was only on the ground that
    out of ten proposers, the ninth prop'Jser was described as the voter at Serial
D   No. 392 in Part 91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear and it is not disputed,
    that the name of the ninth proposer is actually included in the Voters' list,
    but as Serial No. 352 in Part 91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear that both
    Serial No. 352 and Serial No. 392 of Part 91, are printed on the same page
    of the Voters' list. Therefore, it required no detailed search by the Returning
E   Officer to find out or to satisfy himself that the ninth proposer was a voter in
    the constituency. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the
    nomination of the independent candidate does not say that the name of the
    ninth proposer was not in the Voters' list. It only says that Serial No. 392
    shown in the nomination as the serial number of the ninth proposer as a voter
    was found not to be correct. 1699-D-E-FI
F
          2. It was specifically pleaded that the independent candidate had pointed
    out to the Returning Officer that even though there was an error in showing
    the serial number in the Voters' list of the ninth proposer, he was really the
    voter, shown at Serial No. 352 and in spite of it being so shown, the Returning
    Officer had rejected the nomination of the independent candidate. This pleading
G   has not been denied by the appellant in his written statement. Of course, if
    one applies the doctrine of non-traverse, it can be said that on the pleadings,
    the case of the election petitioner on this aspect stands established.
                                                                1699-G-H; 700-A-BI

         Somnalh Rath v. Bikram K. Arukh, 119991 Supp. 2 SCR 410, Udhav
H   Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR (1976) SC 744, Bhagwati Prasad v, Shri
                        RAM BHUAL v. AMBIKA SINGH                             695
Chandramau/, [1966) 2 SCR 286, Ram Sarup Gupta v; Bishun Narain Inter                 A
College, (1987) 2 SCC 555, Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985) 2 SCC 652, Lila
Krishan v. Mani Ram Godara, [1985) Supp. SCC 179, Rafiq Khan v. Laxmi
Narayan Sharma, [1997) 2 SCC 228, Bhogendra Jha v. Manoj Kumar Jha,
[1997) 2 SCC 236, Narender Singh v. Mala Ram, [1999) 8 SCC 198, Rudra
Pratap Singh v. Jagdish Maharaj, AIR (1956) Pat 116 and Hira Singh Pal v.             B
Madan Lal, AIR (1968) SC 1179, referred to.

     Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan v. Mussumat Thakooranee Ruta Kaer, 11
Moores Indian Appeals 468 and Secretary of State for India in Council v.
Laxmibai, 50 Indian Appeals 49, held inapplicable.

      3. Even in spite of the absence of proper pleadings in the written              C
statement, the appellant made no attempt at least to examine the Returning
Officer to contradict the assertion of the independent candidate and the election
petitioner that the independent candidate had pointed out the relevant facts to
the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination of the
independent candidate. In the circumstances of the case and in the absence of         D
proper pleadings on the side of the appellant, the least he should have done,
was to examine the Returning Officer at least in an attempt to contradict the
position adopted by the independent candidate and the election petitioner. Thus,
even if one overlooks the rule that 'no amount of evidence can be looked into
on a plea never put forward', it has to be said that no defence was put up to the
case set forth by the election petitioner even in the oral evidence of the            E
appellant. [700-G-H; 701-A-BJ

      4.1. It is clear from Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper
on the ground ofany defect which is not of a substantial character. [701-G)           F
    Badal & Co. v. East Indian Trading Co., [1964[ 4 SCR 19 and Sushi/
Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, [2003) 8 SCC 673, referred to.

      4.2. It is in the context of the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Act that the
case set up by the respondent of the independent candidate drawing the                G
attention of the Returning Officer to the defect being only an error in the
serial number and that the ninth proposer was actually at Serial No. 352 on
the same page of the Voters' list assumes great significance. It is a minor
defect which obviously should have been got corrected by the Returning
Officer even while accepting the nomination and certainly he could not have
rejected the nomination on that ground in the light of Section 36(4) of the           H
    696                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Act. There is no case for the appellant that the ninth proposer was not the
    voter shown at Serial No. 352 in Part 91 of the Voters' list. [702-B-C-D].

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7193 of2004.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 28. I 0.2004 of the Allahabad High
B   Court in E.P. No. 5 of2002.

         Sudhir Chandra, Rajiv Dutta, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair and Achintya
    Dwivedi for the Appellant.

          S. Chandra Shekhar for the Respondent.
c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. In the elections to the Uttar Pradesh
  Legislative Assembly held on 21.02.2002, the appellant herein was decfared
  elected from 166, Kauriram Assembly Constituency (General). The election of
D the appellant was challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, by
  Election Petition No. 5 of 2002 filed in the High Court of Allahabad under
  Section 80 read with Section 8 I of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  The challenge to the election was rested on Section I 00(1 )( c) of the Act. The
  plea was that the Returning Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had
  wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate Sita Ram
E examined as P.W. 2. The appellant resisted the election petition by questioning
  the right of the election petitioner to file the election petition based on the
  rejection of the nomination of another candidate, who had not come forward
  to challenge that rejection. The High Court, based on the decision of this
  Court in Somnath Rath v. Bikram K. Arukh and Ors., [1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
F 410, took the view that the wrongful rejection of the nomination of any
  candidate can be taken as a ground for challenging an election in an election
  petition by the defeated candidate and hence the election petition was
  maintainable. It then proceeded to consider whether the nomination paper of
  Sita Ram, P. W. 2 was improperly rejected. Having come to the conclusion, on
  the pleadings and the evidence in the case, that the nomination of Sita Ram
G was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer by Ex. A-2 order, it held that
  the election of the appellant was liable to be declared void in terms of Section
   IOO(l)(c) of the Act. Thus the election petition was allowed and the election
  of the appellant was declared void. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed
  this appeal under Section 116-A of the Act.
H
        RAM BHUAL v. AMBIKA SINGH [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. ]                697
      2. P.W. 2 Sita Ram, being an independent candidate, had to be proposed A
by at least ten (10) qualified persons. While furnishing the details of the
qualified persons, Sant Lal, the ninth proposer, was shown as Serial No. 392
in Part 91 in the Voters' list. The Returning Officer on finding that Serial No.
392 in the Voters' list was not Sant Lal, straightaway rejected the nomination
of Sita Ram. Sita Ram did not agitate the matter further, though he claimed
in his evidence that he had given a complaint in writing to the Returning B
Officer, the same day, and on his having failed to receive it, had taken it to
the District Collector who told him that his grievance will be looked into after
the elections. But nothing was produced to show that a complaint in writing
was made by Sita Ram.

        3. The election petitioner pleaded that the name of Sant Lal, the ninth
                                                                               c
proposer of Sita Ram, was at Serial No. 352 of the same page of the Voters'
 list as Serial No. 392 and when the nomination of Sita Ram was taken up for
scrutiny and the Returning Officer while verifying the nomination, took the
stand that there was no voter by name Sant Lal at Serial No. 392, Sita Ram
pointed out to the Returning Officer that serial number shown was only an D
error and that Sant Lal was the voter whose name was shown at Serial No.
352 which was on the same page of the Voters' list; that this was a minor error
which was liable to be overlooked and his nomination accepted. It was further
pleaded that the Returning Officer without following the mandate of Section
36 of the Act and especially sub-Section (4) thereof and the proviso to E
Section 33(4) of the Act had wrongly rejected the nomination and the rejection
was clearly bad in law. We must say that these facts so pleaded are material
particulars within the meaning of Section 83(1) of the Act. Udhav Singh v.
Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR ( 1976) SC 744 can be referred to in this connection.
In his written statement, the appellant, the returned candidate, did not deny
the allegation that Sita Ram was present at the scrutiny of the nomination F
papers and had pleaded with the Returning Officer to accept his nomination,
since the ninth proposer, Sant Lal was in the Voters' list and the small clerical
error in showing the serial number was liable to be ignored. In the .light of
this position emerging from the non-traverse in the written statement, the
judge assigned for trying the election petition, appreciated the evidence in the G
case and accepting the evidence of the election petitioner as P.W. I and that
of Sita Ram examined as P.W. 2, in the light of the evidence led by the
appellant as R.W. 1, held that the election petitioner had proved that when
the Returning Officer took the nomination paper of Sita Ram for scrutiny, Sita
Ram had pointed out that there was no defect except in showing the serial
number of Sant Lal in the Voters' list as 392, whereas it was really Serial H
    698                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A No.352 in Part 91 on the same page of the list. The error in terms of Sections
    33(4) and 36(4) of the Act was only a minor error or an error that should have
    been permitted to be cured by Sita Ram and in that situation, it had to be held
    that the rejection of the nomination of P.W. 2 Sita Ram, was improper and in
    the light of Section I00( I)(c) of the Act, the election of the appellant had to
B   be declared void. Thus, the election petition was allowed by the High Court.

        4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had
  been declared elected at the hustings and the court should be slow to upset
  the popular mandate given to the appellant. He contended that the evidence
  of P.Ws. I and 2 and that ofR.W. I was not properly appreciated by the High
C Court. The burden was on the election petitioner to establish his case that
  the nomination of P. W. 2 was improperly rejected and no independent evidence
  had been adduced by the election petitioner to substantiate his case on that
  aspect even though the presence of another at the relevant time was
  specifically pleaded. Learned counsel pointed out that P.W. 2 Sita Ram though
  had stated that he had pointed out orally to the Returning Officer that there
D was only a minor error in showing the serial number of Sant Lal, the ninth
  proposer, in his nomination, had not produced the copy of the written
  complaint he claims to have made to the Returning Officer immediately after
  the rejection of his nomination paper and on his refusal to receive it, to the
  District Collector. Learned counsel submitted that the parties had joined issue
E on the question whether the nomination of Sita Ram had been improperly
  rejected and the absence of pleadings in the written statement disputing the
  facts and the events as unfolded before the Returning Officer, was not a
  ground to upset the election of the appellant. Learned counsel relied on the
  decisions in Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul, [ 1966] 2 SCR 286, Ram
  Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors., [1987]
F 2 SCC 555, Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985] 2 SCC 652, Lila Krishan v. Mani
  Ram Godara and Ors., [1985] Suppl. SCC 179, Rafiq Khan and Anr. v. Laxmi
  Narayan Sharma, [1997] 2 SCC 228 and Bhogendra Jha v. Manoj Kumar Jha,
  [ 1997] 2 SCC 236 in support of his contention. He brought to our notice the
  decision in Narender Singh v. Mala Ram and Anr., [1999] 8 SCC 198 to point
G out how evidence in an election trial has to be appreciated. He also went back
  to the decisions of the Privy Council in Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan v.
  Mussumat Thakooranee Rutta Kaer, and Ors., 11 Moores Indian Appeals 468
  and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Laxmibai and Anr., 50 Indian
  Appeals 49, and the observations of the Patna High Court in Rudra Pratap ·
  Singh and Ors. v. Jagdish Maharaj dnd Ors., AIR ( 1956 )Patna 116 to submit
H that defect in pleadings in the Mofussil should not be made much of and the
        RAM BHUAL v. AMBIKA SINGH [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.]                   699
fact that the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant was deficient     A
and the relevant allegations were not even denied, should not be allowed to
stand in the way of the appellant arguing that his election should not have
been set aside on the materials available. He, thus, submitted that the approach
 made by the High Court was erroneous and the election petition was liable
to be dismissed. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
                                                                                   B
      5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on
Sections 33 and 36 of the Act and the decision in Hira Singh Pal v. Madan
Lal, AIR (1968) SC 1179 to point out that the improper rejection of the
nomination of even a dummy candidate vitiated the election in terms of
Section lOO(l)(c) of the Act. He also relied on the very decisions referred· to C
by learned counsel for the appellant, to point out that the appreciation of
evidence by the High Court in the light of the pleadings available in the case
and the circumstances made out, was fully justified and there was no ground
made out for interfering with the decision of the High Court.

       6. It is clear that the rejection of the nomination of P. W. 2 by the D
Returning Officer was only on the ground that out of the ten proposers, the
ninth proposer Sant Lal, was described as the voter at Serial No. 392 in Part
91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear and it is not disputed, that the name of
Sant Lal is actually included in the Voters' list, but as Serial No. 352 in Part
91 of the Voters' list. It is also clear that both Serial No. 352 and Serial No.
392 of Part 91, are printed on the same page of the Voters' list. Therefore, it E
required no detailed search by the Returning Officer to find out or to satisfy
himself that Sant Lal, the proposer, was a voter in that constituency. The order
Ex. A-2 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of P. W. 2
does not say that the name of Sant Lal was not in the Voters' list. It only says
that Serial No. 392 shown in the nomination as the serial number of Sant Lal p
as a voter, was found to be not correct. Therefore, the only dispute, that
remained to be decided, was whether P.W. 2 Sita Ram had pointed out this
fact to the Returning Officer when the Returning Officer took up his nomination
paper for scrutiny.

      7. In the pleadings, the election petitioner had in paragraphs 7 and 16      G
very clearly set out what, according to him, transpired before the Returning
Officer at the time of the scrutiny of nominations. It was specifically pleaded
that P.W. 2 had pointed out to the Returning Officer that even though there
was an error in showing the serial number in the Voters' list of Sant Lal, he
was really the voter, shown.at Serial No. 352 and in spite of it being so shown,   H
    700                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the Returning Officer had rejected the nomination of P. W. 2. This pleading has
    not been denied by the appellant in his written statement either while answering
    paragraph 7 or while answering paragraph 16. Of course, if one applies the
    doctrine of non-traverse, it can be said that on the pleadings, the case of the
    election petitioner on this aspect stands established. The election petitioner
    examined himself and spoke to the fact that Sita Ram at the time of scrutiny
B   had pointed out that there was only a clerical error while describing the serial
    number of Sant Lal who was one of his proposers in the Voters' list and that
    there was no substantive defect in the nomination. As far as we have been
    able to see, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination which would justify
    our disagreeing with the appreciation of evidence of the election petitioner
C   as P.W. I on this aspect. We may say that the evidence of the witnesses were
    read out to us twice. The evidence of P.W. I was supported by P.W. 2 Sita
    Ram whose nomination had been rejected. Sita Ram described, what according
    to him, happened at the time of the scrutiny. In the cross-examination, that
    part of the story was not even challenged. The challenge was only about the
    claim of Sita Ram that he had tried to submit a written complaint after the
D   event to the Returning Officer and when the Returning Officer refused to
    receive it, he had taken that complaint, written in his own hand-writing, to the
    District Collector. The challenge was whether he had that complaint with him
    and if so why it was not produced. It was brought out in cross-examination
    of Sita Ram that Sita Ram did not have the complaint he had allegedly written
E   on that occasion. When examined as R. W. I, the appellant in chief-examination
    did not even say that Sita Ram was not present at the time of scrutiny. Be
    it noted that he had not pleaded that Sita Ram was not present when the
    nomination of Sita Ram was taken up for scrutiny by the Returning Officer.
    He also did not say anything about Sant Lal not being a voter in the
    constituency or even try to put forward a case that the name occurring at
F   Serial No. 352 was not of the proposer Sant Lal. In cross-examination when
    he was confronted with his written statement and the absence of any plea on
    these relevant aspects, he tried to say that he had signed the written statement
    without reading or understanding it and that he had full faith in his counsel
    and he had signed it as instructed by his counsel. It may also be noted that
G   even in spite of the absence of proper pleadings in the written statement on
    these aspects, the appellant made no attempt at least to examine the Returning
    Officer to contradict the assertion of Sita Ram and the election petitioner that
    Sita Ram had pointed out the relevant facts to the Returning Officer at the
    time of the scrutiny of the nomination of Sita Ram. We have no doubt in our
    minds that in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of proper
H   pleadings on the side of the appellant, the least he should have done, was
        RAM BHUAL v. AMBiKA SINGH [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.]                  701
to examine the Returning Officer at least in an attempt to contradict the       A
position adopted by P. W. 2 Sita Ram and the election petitioner. Thus, even
if we overlook the rule that 'no amount of evidence can be looked into on
a plea never put forward', we have to say that no defence was put up to the
case set forth by the election petitioner even in the oral evidence of the
appellant.
                                                                                B
      8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel in Mohummud Zahoor
Ali Khan v. Mussumat Thakooranee Rutta Koer, and Ors., 11 Moores Indian
Appeals 468 and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Laxmibai and
Anr., 50 Indian Appeals 49 that the pleadings in Mufassil Courts in our
country are loosely drafted and a liberal construction has always to be given C
to such pleadings, cannot help the appellant. Here is a case of no pleading
at all. How far the principles of those decisions can be applied to a High Court
 like the High Court of Allahabad, one of the chartered High Courts of this
Country and that too, more than 50 years after independence, need not be
answered in this case. This Court in Sadat & Co. v. East India Trading Co.,
 (1964] 4 SCR 19 after referring to Order VJIJ Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil D
Procedure, 1908, held that this construction of pleadings would not apply to
the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay. But in any election petition,
it is well settled by the decisions of this Court, that pleadings are very
important and they, in fact, play a large part in adjudications arising under ttie
Representation of the People Act, 1951. In Sushi/ Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, E
(2003] 8 SCC 673, this Court stated, "The pleadings;jn an election petition
must likewise be construed strictly." Therefore, the attempt oflearned counsel
for the appellant to gloss over the failure of the appellant to deny the relevant
and crucial allegations in the election petition, cannot succeed. The fact is
that the pleadings as regards what transpired before the Returning Officer at
the time of scrutiny of nominations remain un-rebutted in the pleadings of the F
appellant. The pleadings in the election petition also stand supported by the
oral evidence of P.W. I and P.W. 2, in the light of the oral evidence of the
appellant as R.W. I in which not even an attempt is made to deny the facts
spoken to by P.W. I and P.W. 2. It is clear from Section 36(4) of the Act that
the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of G
any defect which is not of a substantial character. Section 3:3(4) of the Act
provides that on the presentation of a nomination paper, the Returning Officer
has to satisfy himself that the names and the electoral roll numbers of the
candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same
as those entered in the electoral roll. The proviso thereto clearly provides that
no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error H
    702                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person,
    or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or the nomination
    paper and no clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the electoral roll
    numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall
    affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the nomination paper with
B   respect to such person or place and in a case where there was an error in the
    nomination paper in regard to the description, he shall direct that the same
    be corrected and he could even overlook such errors. It is in the context of
    the proviso to Section 33(4), that the case set up by the appellant, of Sita Ram
    drawing the attention of the Returning Officer to the defect being only an
    error in the serial number and that Sant Lal, the ninth proposer, was actually
C   at Serial No. 352 on the same page of the Voters' list assumes great significance.
    It is a minor defect which obviously should have been got corrected by the
    Returning Officer even while accepting the nomination and certainly he could
    not have rejected the nomination on that ground in the light of Section 36(4)
    of the Act. At the ·risk of repetition, we may mention that there is no case
    for the appellant that Sant Lal was not the voter shown at Serial No. 352 in
D   Part 91 of the Voters' list.

        9. In our view, the High Court has approached the question falling for
  decision properly and it has appreciated the pleadings and the evidence in
  the proper manner. No defect could be found either in the approach made by
E the High Court or in its appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the
  case. The finding of fact recorded by the High Court is the only finding that
  a court trained in law could have come to, in the circumstances of the case.
                              ..
  Therefore, even while exercising our wide jurisdiction under Section 116-A of
  the Representation of the People Act, 1951, we find no ground to interfere
  with the decision of the High Court. We; therefore, confirm the decision of
F the High Court declaring the election of the appellant void. In the result, we
  dismiss this appeal with costs.

    V.S.S.                                                       Appeal dismissed.