Holding

There is no statutory duty on the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry; the rejection of the nomination paper was justified and the election stands.

Summary

In the 1985 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election for Constituency No. 14 Lahar, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of candidate Ramprakash because his name could not be identified on the electoral roll and he was absent to correct the defect. The election was won by Mathura Prasad, whose election was challenged by voter Ajeem Khan under Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on the ground that the rejection was illegal and the defect was not of a substantial character under Section 36(4). The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the rejection illegal, declared the election void, and ordered the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the paper as there is no statutory duty to conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain the candidate’s identity when neither the candidate nor a representative is present. The Court clarified that a defect is substantial if the identity cannot be ascertained without assistance, and that the Returning Officer had fulfilled his duty by giving ample opportunity to correct the defect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the election of Mathura Prasad upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the rejection of Ramprakash's nomination paper by the Returning Officer was illegal.
Whether the defect in the nomination paper was of a substantial character under Sections 33(4) and 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the Returning Officer has a statutory duty to make a roving enquiry to ascertain a candidate's identity when the candidate and his representative are absent.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 116-A, s. 33(2), s. 33(4), s. 36(4), s. 88

Subjects

election lawnomination paperreturning officersubstantial defectstatutory dutyelectoral rollelection petitionscrutiny

Judgment

MATHURA PRASAD
A
v.
AJEEM KHAN

APRIL 17, 1990

[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) B

Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 33(4), 36(4), 88 and
,,. 116-A-Returning Officer-Finding out of identity of candidate--
1

Order rejecting nomination papers of a candidate--Validity of-Held
Ii no statutory duty cast on Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry.
~
Election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya
c
Pradesh was held in February, 1985. For Constituency No. 14 Lahar
,..,r (Distt. Bhind) nomination papers were filed l;iefore 6th February, 1985
and scrutiny done on February 7, 1985. During the scrutiny the noini-
nation paper of Ramprakash who was one of the candidates was
rejected by the Returning Officer. The order rejecting the paper reads D
as under:

"Candidate is not identified as per electoral roll. His rep-
resentative has accepted this mistake also .. Hence rejected.
Advised for correction but did not correct. The candidate
~- did not correct after advising to correct mistake. Even did E
not appear at the time ,of.scrutiny to correct mistake. Hence
rejected. See Section 33(4) R.P.A."

Result of the election was declared on' 5th March, 1985 and the
appellant declared elected.
-,.- F
The. election of the appellant was challenged by the Respondent
~ wno was one of the voters of the constituency through an election peti-
lion on several grounds-the main ground being the wrongful rejection
of the nomination paper of Ramprakash. On the pleadings of the parties
the High Court framed issue No. I which reads as under:
G
(i) Whether rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash by
the Returning bmcer was illegal, as alleged?

The High Court on an analysis of the evidence came to the conclu-
sion that the entire story advanced by the election petitioner and his
witnesses was a fabrication and deserved to be rejected outright. How- H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A ever after recording this fmding the learned single judge of the High
Court went on to hold that the candidate's absence was immaterial and
-~-
the Returning Officer could have himself found out the electoral
number of the candidate Ramprakash readily with a little effort without
the assistance of any of the persons mentioned in Section 36( I) of the
_Act and that the defect in the nomination paper cannot be held to be of a
B substantial character. Issue No. I was thus decided in favour of the
election petitioner as a result of which the election petition was allowed
and the election of the appellant declared void. Hence this appeal by the
elected candidate. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment
of the High Court, this Court,

C HELD: There is no statutory duty cast on the Returning Officer to
himself 1001!. through the entire electoral roll of a particular part with a
view to finding out the correct identity of a candidate at the time of the
scrutiny even though neither the candidate himself nor any other re-
presentative on his behalf was present to cure the defect. (5168-D]

D A perusal of the circumstances put forward by the witnesses at the
time of scrutiny and rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash
shows that Ramprakash himself was not present and even his proposer
Jaiprakash after having gone to fetch Ramprakash did not return back
and ultimately the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of
Ramprakash. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the
E nomination paper of Ramprakash clearly makes a mention that the
candidate was not identified as per electoral roll. His representative had
accepted the mistake also and was advised for correction but did not
correct the same. The candidate did not correct after advising to correct
the mistake. It further makes a mention that the candidate even did not
appear at the time of scrntiny to correct the mistake. _In the cir-
F cumstances mentioned above we have no hesitation at all in holding that
the Returning Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting the nomination
paper of Ramprakash. [509A-C]

It depends on the facts and_ circumstances of each case to find as
to what mistake in a nomination paper can be considered a mistake of
G substantial nature. It is correct that the Returning Officer should not
reject a nomination paper merely on a mistake of technical or formal
nature, where the identity of the candidate can be ascertained by him
on the material made available to him. He should also give an opportu-
nity to the candidate or his representative present at the time of scrutiny
to remove the defect. However, in case neither_ the candidate nor his
H representative be __ present and without removing such defect in the
MATHURA PRASAD v. AJEEM KHAN [KASLIWAL, J.] 505

nomination paper the identity of the candidate cannot be ascertained,
A
then there is no statutory duty cast on the Returning Officer to make a
roving enquiry by going through the material placed before him and to
remove such defect himself. [S09D-F]

Lila Krishan v. Mani Ram Godara & Ors., [1985] Suppl. S.C.R.
I 592; Dalip Kumar Gon. v. Durga Prasad Singh, AIR 1974 SC B
2343; Amolak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 246 and Brij
Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985] 3 SCR 321, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 673

-
of 1986.

From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .2.1986 of the Madhya c
Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 41 of 1985.

S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Satija forthe Appellant.

D
Mrs. J. Wad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Rep-
resentation of People Act, 1951 (in short "the Act") is directed against E
the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 17th
February, 1986. Election of Legislative Assembly of the State of
Madhya Pradesh was held in the month of February, 1985. One of the
Constituencies was No. 14 Lahar (District Bhind). The nomination
papers were filed before 6th February, 1985 and the scrutiny was done
on 7th February, 1985. Several persons filed their nomination papers. F
The nomination paper of Ramprakash was rejected by the Returning
Officer in the scrutiny. The order passed by the Returning Officer
rejecting the nomination paper reads as under:

"Candidate is not identified as per electoral roll. His rep-
resentative has accepted this mistake also. Hence rejected. G
Advised for correction but did not correct. The candidate
did not correct after advising to correct mistake. Even did
not appear at the time of scrutiny to correct mistake.
Hence rejected. See section 33(4) R.P.A."

Result of the election was declared on 5th March, 1985 and Shri H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11990] 2 S.C.R.
;.
A Mathura Prasad appellant declared elected.

{\jeem Khan one of the voters of the Constituency filed an elec-
tion petition under Sec. 88 of the Act challenging !He election of
Mathura Prasad on several grounds but it is not necessary to state all
the grounds as the controversy in the present appeal centres round the
8
wrongful rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash. The
ground in this regard taken in the election petition was that the nomi-
nation paper of Ramprakash was wrongly rejected as the defect in his
nomination paper was not of a substantial character. It was alleged
that in the nomination paper filed by Ramprakash the column meant
,..
-
for stating the candidate's serial number in the electoral roll was left
C blank. It was thus alleged that the said defect was not of a substantial
character and the nomination paper should not have been rejected in view
of the provisions contained in Section 36(4) of the Act.

On the other hand the case of Mathura Prasad, the elected candi-
date was that neither Ramprakash nor any other person on his behalf
D was present before the Returning Officet when the nomination paper
of Ramprakash was taken up for scrutiny. At the tiine of scrutiny, the
Returning Officer had pointeil out that voter number was not
mentioned in the nomination paper and Jaiprakash (RW.3) who was
the proposer of Ramprakash had told the- R1;turning Officer that he
would inform Ramprakash regarding the above defect. The Returning
E Officer then put that nomination paper aside and took other nomina-
...,
tion papers for scrutiny. Jaiprakash remained present in the hall await-
ing the arrival of Ramprakash. The Returning Officer after scrutinis-
ing all the other nomination papers again called out the name of
Ramprakash. As Ramprakash had not arrived till then, Jaiprakash left
the hall after informing the Returning Officer that he would fetch
F Ramprakash. Jaiprakash le.ft the place and went in search of
Ramprakash but his efforts to search Ramprakash went in vain and he
did not return back before the Returning Officer. In view of the above
circumstances, the Returning Officer passed the order rejecting the
nomination paper of Ramprakash under sec. 33(4) of the Act.

G On the pleadings of the parties Learned Single Judge of the High
Court who tried the election petition framed Issue No. 1 in this regard
which reads as under:

(i) Whether rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash
by the Returning Officer was illegal, as alleged?
H
MATHURA PRASAD v. AJEEM KHAN [KASLIWAL, J.[ 507

Both the parties lead evidence in support of their case. The petitioner A
in support of his case regarding the above issue examined himself,
Mitthookhan, Gourishanker and Pahalwan. By the evidence of the
aforementioned witnesses a story was put forward that shortly before
the nomination paper of Ramprakash was taken up for scrutiny,
Ramprakash had gone out for passing urine. He had left behind Mitth-
ookhan as his representative and when the nomination paper of B
Ramprakash was taken up for scrutiny and the defect was pointed out,
Mitthookhan after informing the Returning Officer went out for cal-
ling Ramprakash. He alongwith Ramprakash returned back after five
minutes only but the nomination paper had already been rejected by
the Returning Officer.
c
On the contrary Mathura Prasad examined himself and Jai-
prakash who was not only the proposer of Ramprakash but was also
his cousin. J aiprakash fully supported the case of Mathura Prasad.

Learned Single Judge after analysing the evidence of both the D
parties arrived to the conclusion that the entire story as advanced by
the election petitioner and his witnesses was obviously a fabrication.
He further held that such story being fabricated it deserved to be
rejected outright. He further observed as under:

"The versions of the respondent (R.W. 1) are corroborated E
not only by the returning officer Shri Hoshiyarsingh,
examined by the petitioner himself as P.W. 1, but also by
the petitioner's cousin Jaiprakas}l (R. W. 3) who was also
his proposer and the evidence is also consistent with the
grounds of rejection stated by the returning officer in his
order. The returning officer Shri Hoshiyarsingh (P.W. 1) is F
.... an independent witness and Jaiprakash (R.W. 3), who is
cousin and proposer of Ramprakash (P.W. 4), also has no
reason to tell lies. I, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve
the versions of the respondent (P.W. 1) as to what trans-
pired when the nomination paper of Ramprakash (P. W. 4)
came up for scrutiny and under which circumstances it was G
rejected by the returning officer".

After recording the above finding the Learned Single Judge took into
consideration the fact that in the nomination paper of Ramprakash,
his name, his father's name, his postal address, the number and name
of the Constituency to which nomination paper related and the H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 2 S.C.R.

A number of the part of the electoral roll of the same constituency in
which part his name was entered as a voter were duly and correctly
filled up. It was further observed that Exhibit P. 1 a certified copy of
that part of the electoral roll showed that the total number of voters -------
registered therein was 1011 and the name of Ramprakash was entered
therein at serial No. 735. At the time of scrutiny, the Returning
B Officer must have naturally been assisted by some members of his
subordinate staff. Learned Single Judge further observed that accord-
ing to the Returning Officer himself the nomination paper was put of ..,.
by him in the midst of the scrutiny proceedings and it was rejected
subsequently after the scrutiny of all other nomination papers was
_..,
over. There was thus ample time to locate the serial number of the
candidate in the above-mentioned part of the electoral roll. The
c Returning Officer had admitted that no effort was made by him to "J'
locate it. Learned Single Judge thus concluded that it was not the
contention of the Returning Officer that it was not possible for him to ~
locate the name of Ramprakash in the electoral roll and find out his \1
serial number but in fact the Returning Officer made no effort in this
D regard. Learned Single Judge distinguished a decision of this Court in
Lila Krishan v. Mani Ram Godara & Ors., (1985] Suppl. S.C.R. 1592.
He further held that candidate's absence was immaterial and the
Returning Officer could have himself found out the electoral number
of the candidate Ramprakash readily with a very little effort by refer-
ring to the electoral roll part mentioned in the nomination paper and
~
E the same being also available with him at the time of scrutiny the
electoral number could have been found out without the assistance of
any of the persons mentioned in Sec. 36( 1) of the Act and the defect in
the nomination paper cannot be held to be of a substantial character.
Issue No. 1 was thus decided in favour of the petitioner Ajeem Khan -.-
and as a res.ult of which the election petition was allowed and the ~-

F election ofMathura Prasad was declared void.
.~
Aggrieved against the decision of the High Court, Mathura
Prasad the winning candidate filed the present appeal before this
Court. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and in our
view this appeal has to be allowed.
G
As already mentioned above the Learned Single Judge himself
did not accept the story as put forward by the petitioner Ajeem Khan,
rather it was held that the entire story narrated by him was a fabrica- ·Al
tion and the same deserved to be rejected outright. The Returning
Officer who was an independent witness and Jaiprakash who was a
H proposer of Ramprakash were believed and it was held that the entire
MATHURA PRASAD v. AJEEM KHAN [KASLIWAL, J.] 509

circumstances under which the nomination paper of Ramprakash came A
up for scrutiny and was rejected were correct. Thus a perusal of the
-~
circumstances put forward by these witnesses at the time of scrutiny
and rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash shows that
Ramprakiish himself was not present and even his proposer Jaiprakash
after having gone to fetch Ramprakash did not return back and ulti-
mately the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of B
Ramprakash. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the
nomination paper of Ramprakash clearly makes a mention that the
candidate was not identified as per electoral roll. His representative
had accepted the mistake also and was advised for correction but did
not correct the same. The candidate did not correct after advising to
correct the mistake. It further makes a mention that the candidate
even did not appear at the time of scrutiny to correct the mistake. In
c
the circumstances mentioned above we have no hesitation at all in
holding that the Returning Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting
the nomination paper of Ramprakash. It depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case to find as to what mistake in a nomination
paper can be considered a mistake of substantial nature. It is correct D
that the Returning Officer should not reject a nomination paper
merely on a mistake of technical or formal nature, where the identity
of the candidate can be ascertained by him on the material made
available to him. He should also give an opportunity to the candidate
or his representative present at the time of scrutiny to remove the
defect. However, in case neither the candidate nor his representative E
be present and without removing such defect in the nomination paper
the identity of the candidate cannot be ascertained, then there is no
statutory duty cast on the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry
by going through the Material placed before him and to remove such
'-f'' defect himself.
F
We may also refer to some cases cited before us at the bar. Dalip
Kumar Gon v. Durga Prasad Singh, AIR 1974 SC 2343 is the case on
which strong reliance has been placed by Learned counsel for Ajeem
Khan. In the above case in the column of prinited nomination form
meant for making a declaration of the candidates of the Scheduled
Caste/Tribe contesting for a reserve seat, Abdul Hamid contesting G
from general constituency had not (a) filled his specific caste in the
blank meant for that purpose and further (b) he had in that column left
the words 'Scheduled Castes' unscored. The Returning Officer
rejected the nomination papers on the ground that the failure of the
candidate to delete the words 'Scheduled Castes' means that "he
belongs to Scheduled Caste which is not true" and consequently, the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A nomination papers were not filled up properly. An electoral of the
constituency filed an election petition on the ground that the nomina-
tion papers of Abdul Hamid and Khatir Ali had been improperly
rejected. Learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the above
rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer and held that
the candidate's filling of these eateries were on the face of it, not
B proper and did not comply with the requirements of law. It was further
held that this defect was not trivial or technical but of a substantial
character. On appeal before the Supreme Court the Judgment of the
High Court was set aside and it was held as under:

"The High Court's view that in scoring out only the word
'Jan-Jati' (tribe) and leaving the word 'Jati' (caste)
c untouched in the aforesaid column of !he nomination form,
Abdul Hamid had failed "to comply with the requirement
of the law on the subject" ·was entirely misconceived. It
overlooked the fact that the Jamtara Constituency was a
'General' Constituency and the seat for which the candi-
D dates wanted to contest the election was not a Reserved
seat. Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People
Act, 19~ 1, or any other statutory provision does not enjoin
upon a candidate who is contesting the election for a
General Seat, and not for a Reserved Seat, to specify in his
declaration his caste or tribe. Further, the ·Returning
E Officer appearing as R.W. 2, had clearly admitted that at
the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, he was
aware that Abdul Hamid was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste and that he had deposited Rs.250 as secu-
rity. The omission to strike off the column in the printed
nomination form relating to Scheduled Caste{Tribe did not
F amount to a defect in the eye Of law, much less was it a
defect of a substantial charact~r, warranting rejection of
l'lle nomination papers in Amolak Chand v. Raghuveer
Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 246=AIR 1968 SC 1203. The nomina-
tion papers of two candidates contesting for a general con-
stituency were rejected on a similar ground. Holding that
G the rejection was improper, Ramaswami, J. Speaking for

-
the Court,'.stated the law on tqe point thus:

"The printed form 2-A is meant both for '
general and reserved constituencies but why it is
obligatory for candidates in the res.erved consti-
H tuency to make a declaration ill the proper
MATHURA PRASAD v. AJEEM KHAN [KASLIWAL, l.J. 511

column that he is a member of a particular caste
A
or tribe there is no such rule with regard to
general constituency. Sec. 33(2) of the Act
imposes an obligation on the candidate in the
reserved constituency to make a declaration in
the proper column but there is no such direction
in the statute with regard to the general con- B
stituencies. In our opinion, the mention of the
caste of the candidate in the nomination form
was a clear superfluity because it was not neces-
sary for the candidate to fill in the column when
he was contesting in a general constituency.

In the light of what has been said above,
c
we would, reverse the finding of the High Court
and hold that the nomination papers of Abdul
Hamid were improperly rejected by the Return-
ing Officer".
D
In the above case the facts were entirely different and it lends no
assistance to the case set up by Ajeem Khan, respondent before us. In
the above case it was clearly held that Sec. 33(2) of the Act or any
other Statutory provision does not enjoin upon a candidate who is
· contesting the election for a general seat, and not for a reserved seat,
"" to specify in his declaration his caste or tribe. However, the Returning E
Officer had clearly admitted that at the time of the scrutiny of the
nomination papers, he was aware that Abdul Hamid was not a member
of the Scheduled Caste and that he had deposited Rs.250 as security.
Thus it was held that the omission to strike of the column in the printed
nomination form relating to Scheduled Castes!fribe did not amount to
· ._,.., a defect in the eye of law, much less it was a defect of a substantial F
character.

In Brij Mohan v. Sat Pal, [1985) 3 SCR 321 one Dog Ram had
filed his nomination papers for contesting election to the Haryana
Legislative Assembly from Jind Constituency. His name was proposed
by Ram Pratap, an elector of the Constituency. Dog Ram was G
' registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house number 57 in part
39 of the electoral roll of the constituency whereas his proposer Ram
Pratap was registered as electoral at serial No. 313 and house number 6
in part 39 of the same constituency. The name and postal address of
Dog Ram were correctly given in the nomination papers but the part of
the electoral. mil was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by an inadvertant H
mistake committed by the person who filed the nomination papers.
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

Similarly in the case of the proposer the serial number of the elector
A
and the members of the constituency were given correctly but the
number of his house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the
part of the electoral roll. At the time of scrutiny no other candidate or
proposer objected to the acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog
Ram but the Returning Officer of his own rejected the nomination
B paper on the ground that particulars of the candidate and the proposer
had been wrongly entered in the nomination papers.

The High Court considered the question as to whether the nomi-
nation paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected. On the evidence
led by the parties the Single Judge found that the candidate Dog Ram
and his proposer. were registered as voters in the constituency and
c were· qualified to contest the election and propose the candidate
respectively. It was further found that errors in regard to electoral ~
roll numbers of the candidates and the proposer in the electoral roll
and the nomination paper do not constitute defects of a substantial
character as mentioned in the Proviso to Section 33(4) of the Act.
D Learned Single Judge accepted the evidence of the proposer (P.W.2)
to the effect that when he and the candidate presented the nomination
paper, the Returning Officer told them that it was in order and that the
Returning Officer had tripped them into an error and if the Returning
Officer had told them that there were some discrepancies in the nomi-
nation paper they would have either made corrections then and there
E and could have gone more fully prepared to make objections at the
time of the scrutiny. The High Court in these circumstances allowed
the election petition on the ground that the nomination paper of Dog
Ram was improperly rejected.

On appeal to this Court by the elected candidate it was held that
the Returning Officer could not be said to have improperly rejected -V -
the nomination paper of Dog Ram. This Court did not believe the
evidence of proposer (P.W.2) which was not corroborated by the .,.:r
evidence of any other witness. In the facts and circumstances of the
case it was held that the Single Judge was not justified in accepting the
evidence of P. W .2 and in holding that the Returning Officer was guilty
G of tripping the candidate and the proposer by any assertion on his part
into anyone believing that there was nothing wrong in the nomination
paper. In the above case this Court observed as under:

"It is not possible to say generally and in the abstract that
all errora in regard to electoral rolls or nomination papers
H do not constitute defects of a substantial character. They
MATHURA PRASAD v. AJEEM KHAN [KASLIWAL, J.] 513

would not be defects of a substantial character only if at the
A
time of the scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself
__ __.,_ with the materials placed before him during the scrutiny or
with the assistance of the candidate or his proposer or any
other person is able to find out the correct serial number of
the candidate and the proposer in the electoral roll. If that
is not the case, he would be committing a grave error by B
accepting the nomination paper without verifying whether
the candidate is a voter in that or any other constituency of
¥ the State and whether the proposer is a voter in that
constituency".
}r
• 4 ••••••

c
"The candidate and-the proposer are always expected to go
fully prepared to meet any objection that may be raised by
.# any candidate or even by Returning Officer himself suo
motu at the time of the scrutiny and they cannot be
expected to go any the less prepared merely because lhe D
Retuniing Officer had received the nomination paper with-
out raising any objection, It is at the time of scrutiny which
is done in the presence of all concerned that the nomina-
tion papers come up for more detailed consideration at the
hands of the Returning Officer against whom there is no
~ estoppel in regard to the statutory duty of scrutiny". E

In the above case this Court clearly held that the defects would
not be of a substantial character only if at the time of scrutiny the
~
Returning Officer either by himself with the materials placed before
him during the scrutiny or with the assistance of the candid11te or his
-._,;. proposer or any other person is able to _find out the correct serial F
number of the candidate and the proposer in the electoral roll. It no
;i.- where lays down that it is the statutory duty of the Returning Officer
himself to cure the defect at the time of the scrutiny. We cannot readin
the above authority, as sought to be argued by the Learned counsel for
the respondent, that in the case before us even though Ramprakash or
any other representative on his behalf was _not present to cure the G
defect, still it was the duty of the Returning Officer himself to find out
the correct identity of Ramprakash. As already discussed above the
learned Single Judge had himself held that the case set up by Ajeem
~
Khan was a fabricated one and the story put forward by the winning
candidate Mathura Prasad and his witnesses was correct. From the
evidence of Returning Officer it was clear that the defect in the nomi- H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

nation paper of Rampralrnsh was brought to the notice of his proposer
A
Jaiprakash and the nomination paper. was not rejected in the first
round. An ample opportunity was given to Jaiprakash to bring Ram-
prakash but he failed to tum up. The nomination paper was then
rejected after the scrutiny of all other nomination papers was over.
The Returning Officer in the abov:l: circumstances was perfectly
B justified in rejecting the nomination paper of Ramprakash. Learned
Single fodge wrongly distinguished the case of Lila Krishan v. Mani
Ram Godara & Ors., [1985) Suppl. 1S.C.R.592 (supra). In this case
the .election of Lila Krishan from Fatehbad Constituency of Haryana
Assembly was challenged on the ground that the nomination papers of
two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak had been
improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Proposer of Mani
c Ram Chhapola was one Brij Bhushan while proposer of Raj Tilakwas
one Upendra Kumar. Brij Bhushan's serial number in the electoral roll
was 26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In form 3A these numbers
were correctly indicated but in the nomination papers the numbers had
been shown as 126 and 177 respectively. The Returning Officer
D rejected these nomination papers as the serial numbers of the propos-
ers as disclosed in the nomination papers did not tally with reference to
the electoral roll. The High Court set aside the election of Lila Kishan
holding that the Returning Officer acted ma/a fide and had either
directly or indirectly been responsible for the alteration in the nomina-
tion papei:s, since the nomination papers when filed were in order and
E while they were in the custody of the Returning Officer's establish-
ment, interpolations have been made and on the basis thereof of nomi-
nation papers had been rejected.

Appeal filed in Lila Krishan was allowed by this Court and it was
held that the conclus;on of the High Court that the Returning Officer
F either by himself or through somebody caused the interpolation to be
done was totally unwarranted. On the basis of the above facts it was
held as under:

Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial
number in the prescribed column against the proposer is
G for the purpose of indentifying the proposer and ascertaining
that he is competent to propose. The scope of scrutiny is
obviously to verify the contents of the nomination paper
with a view to ascertaining whether the form is in order and
what is required to be complied with by the election law has
been duly complied with. This Court has repeatedly held
H that election proceedings are strict in nature and what is
MATHURA PRASAD v, AJEEM KHAN IKASLIWAJ,, J,( 515

required to be performed in a particular ll)anner tias 19 be
A
done as required or the Rules made thereunder. That is
why an exception has been made by inserting Sub-s, (4) of
Section 36 of the Act. Therefore, to cast the obligation of
the Returning Officer to look through the entire electoral
roll of a particular part with a view to finding out tP,e
identity of the proposer is not the requirement of the law,
To read that as an obligation is likely to lead a unworkable
position".

"In the instant case, no one was available, for instance,
when the Returning Officer took up the nomination paper -C
of Mani Ram Chhapola to indicate to the Returning Officer
that his serial number in the electoral roll was 26 and not
126. If this had been pointed out and on summary enquiry
the identity of Brij Bhushan was not in dispute, there
would have been end Qf the matter. If the correlation has D
not been made and the Returninjl Officer has no assistance
to fix up the identification it ca11not be said to be a pefect
not of substantial character. Moreove, It could not !le
statutory obligation of the Returning Officer to scrutinis~
the electoral roll for finding out the identity of the proposer
when the serial number turns out to be wrong. But if j:':
interested and competent persons point out to the Retum"
ing Officer that it is a mistake, it would certainly be his
obligation to look into the mattecto find out whether the
mistake, is inconsequential and has, therefore, either to be
permitted· to be corrected or to be overlooked, When
scrutiny was taken up Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak F
on their own showing were not present before the Return-
i-· ing Officer. Similarly, the proposers, Brij Bhushan and
Upender Kumar were also absent. Thougb there Is evi-
dence on the side of the election petition~rs th>1t the
Assistant Returning Officer was present at the time of
scrutiny, he as P.W. 4 has categorically denied that fact. G
The Returning Officer, R.W. 3, has stated that the
Assistant Returning Officer was not present when he took
up scrutiny on the nomination papers. There is also evi-
dence from the side of the appellant that the Assistant
Returning Officer was not present. lu the circumstances, if
the nomination papers have been rejected for mistake in H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 2 S.C.R •

A the nomination papers it is the candidates themselves who·
have to thank their lot and no mistake can be found with
the Returning Officer. Therefore, the nomination papers
were validly rejected".

Thus in the above case it was clearly laid down that to cast an
B
obligation on the Returning Officer to look through the entire
electoral roll of a particular part with a view to finding out the identity
of the proposer is not the requirement of the law.

In the case before us even if it may be considered for a moment
that by making some effort by the Returning Officer, the identity of
c Ramprakash could have been ascertained, there being no statutory
duty cast on him to do so coupled with the fact that neither the candi-
date Ramprakash nor any representative on his be~alf was ready to
assist the Returning Officer in curing the defect and in proving the
correct identity of Ramprakash, it cannot be said that the Returning
Officer committed any error in rejecting the nomination paper of
D Ramprakash. The Returning Officer not only granted ample time but
even brought the defect to the notice of Jaiprakash proposer but still the
defect in the nomination paper was not removed.

In the result this appeal is allowed, the Judgment of the High
Court dated 17th February, 1986 is set aside and it is .held that the
E RetumingOfficer rightly rejected the nomination paper of Ramprakash.

The appellant would also be entitled to costs.

R.N.J. Appeal allowed.

--1.