Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ No. 90 of 1964

Attorney(S)

S. C. Goyal
N. L. Dhingra
for Respondent No. 3

Judges

A.N Grover, J.

Acts

section 13-0 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1902,
SECTION 18 REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1950
Municipal Election Rules, 1952.8.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the election of a respondent as Sarpanch of village Kilianwali, Tehsil Muktsar. The petition initially challenges the election of respondent No. 8 as Sarpanch of village Kilianwali; the final order in the opinion quashes the election of respondent No. 3 as Sarpanch (both references appear in the text).

Petitioner No. 1 is described as a member of the Sabha of village Kilianwali. Petitioner No. 2 is described as a member of the Panchayat and Block Samiti, Larabi, and also a member of the Sabha of village Kilianwali.

The petition alleges that the electoral rolls for the Sabha area included voters in serial ranges 1232 to 2130, 8343 to 8671 and 10281 to 10291 — a total of 1,239 votes, of which four were deleted leaving 1,235 votes. Nomination papers were to be filed on 27th December, 1963, and the poll was to be held on 28th December, 1983 (dates as stated in the opinion).

The principal substantive allegation is that a supplementary list of 558 or 559 voters (prepared from serial numbers 10685 to 11243) was illegally prepared and that many names in that roll were entered more than once. Annexure 'E' was filed showing names that, with few exceptions, had been entered at more than one place. The petitioners' counsel asserted that 56 persons were entered twice; the respondents' counsel disputed the number (the return and filings contain inconsistent figures).

A return was filed by the respondents on 9th December, 1964, stating that the electoral rolls were prepared according to the instructions and rules (as referred to in paragraph 9 of the petition). The return did not materially deny the allegation that the names in Annexure 'E' had been entered at more than one place; records produced indicated that some similarly named entries had differing parentage and were shown as separate individuals recorded on separate applications.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the supplementary electoral roll (serial nos. 10685 to 11243) was lawfully prepared, given that many names appear to have been entered more than once, in contravention of section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Whether an election held on the basis of such a supplementary roll is invalid and must be quashed.
Whether the existence of a pending election petition before the prescribed authority is a bar to the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the election.
Whether the prescribed authority (Election Tribunal) is entitled to go behind the electoral roll to examine and adjudicate alleged multiple registrations or multiple votes, or whether the electoral roll/register of electors is final and not open to such scrutiny.
Whether, even if defects in the roll are established, the petitioners must show that the result of the election was materially affected (referencing clause (d)(ii) of section 13‑0 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1902).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The supplementary electoral roll was illegally prepared because the names of a large number of voters were entered at more than one place (Annexure 'E').
As section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 prohibits registration of a person more than once in an electoral roll, the inclusion of the same voters at multiple places renders the roll illegal and the election void.
The prescribed authority is in some respects constrained by the finality of the electoral roll/register and, according to the petitioners' reliance on certain precedents, the roll must be treated as final (the petitioners relied on decisions such as Lekh Raj v. Cantonment Board and S.B. Javaregowda v. Lakkigowda to make points about the tribunal's limitations).

Respondents' Arguments

The return filed on 9th December, 1964 contended that the electoral rolls were prepared according to the relevant instructions and rules (as referred to in the petition).
The respondents contested the extent and effect of duplicate entries: records showed that entries with similar names but differing parentage were different individuals, recorded on separate applications in accordance with rules.
Even if defects in the roll existed, the respondents argued that (a) the writ court should not interfere because an election petition with identical allegations was already pending before the prescribed authority, and (b) the petitioners must show that the defects materially affected the election result (relying on section 13‑0 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1902).
The respondents argued that the prescribed authority is the proper forum to determine whether the same voter has voted more than once and whether such votes should be rejected as improper reception of votes.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lekh Raj v. Cantonment Board, AIR 1958 Punj 350	That the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll and decide whether a particular voter has been validly enrolled; tribunal's jurisdiction extends to acceptance/rejection of nominations and holding of election but not to correctness of the electoral roll.	The Court described this as the correct view and noted no authoritative decision to the contrary; the decision was relied upon in the argument about the tribunal's power to examine the roll.
S.B. Javaregowda v. Lakkigowda, AIR 1958 Mys 73	Supports the proposition that the Election Tribunal should not go behind the electoral roll to assess the correctness of enrolments.	The Court cited it alongside Lekh Raj to show established authority for the limited scope of tribunal review regarding electoral rolls.
Lajpat Rai v. Khilari Ram, 82 Pun LR 377	Holds that where authorities prepare rolls unreasonably or capriciously or in violation of rules, the rolls may be struck down; but not every defect or irregularity will invalidate a roll — nature and extent of breach must be examined.	The Court relied on this decision to state that each case requires examination of the nature and extent of the breach; it acknowledged that serious breaches can invalidate a roll and that minor or technical defects may not.
Dev Prakash v. Babu Ram, 63 Pun LR 485; AIR 1961 Punj 429 (Full Bench)	Full Bench commentary that elections should not be disturbed for merely technical breaches; there must be material circumstances touching the substance of the election to justify disturbing it.	The Court referenced the Full Bench decision to underline that disturbance of an election requires proof of material effect or a fundamental defect; it used the authority to frame the need to examine whether the roll was so illegal as to vitiate the election.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, relying only on the materials and authorities presented in the opinion:

Examination of the presented evidence: Annexure 'E' and the return were considered. Annexure 'E' showed that, with few exceptions, many names in the supplementary roll had been entered more than once. The respondents' return did not meaningfully deny this; records produced indicated that some similarly named entries had different parentage and were recorded on separate applications.
Legal rule on multiple registration: The court identified section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which states that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once. The court treated this statutory prohibition as decisive on the point of multiple entries.
Effect of the statutory prohibition on validity of the roll: Because many names were entered more than once in the supplementary roll, the court concluded that such a roll had been prepared in contravention of section 18 and was therefore illegal.
Interaction with the competing jurisprudence on tribunal powers: The court considered precedents holding that an Election Tribunal generally has no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll (Lekh Raj; S.B. Javaregowda), and also precedents recognizing that rolls may be set aside if prepared unreasonably or in fundamental breach of rules (Lajpat Rai) and that disturbance of an election requires material circumstances (Dev Prakash Full Bench).
Application to the facts: The court distinguished technical or minor irregularities from foundational illegality. It held that where the very foundation of the election — the electoral roll — is illegal (as by large-scale multiple registrations contrary to section 18), an election held on that basis cannot stand. The court found the present supplementary roll to be so defective.
Jurisdictional consequence and writ relief: The respondents argued that a pending election petition before the prescribed authority should prevent the High Court from granting writ relief and that the prescribed authority should examine whether any person voted more than once. The court rejected the contention that the pendency of an election petition constituted an absolute bar to relief in the writ jurisdiction where the roll itself is illegal. The court stated that it had held the Tribunal to be entitled or empowered to consider illegality in preparation of rolls and that accordingly the High Court could interfere under Article 226.
Conclusion of invalidity: On the cumulative basis of the evidence of multiple entries, the statutory prohibition in section 18, and the analysis of the authorities distinguishing fundamental illegality from mere technical defect, the court concluded that the election held on the impugned roll was invalid.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition was allowed and the election was quashed — specifically, the opinion states: the election of respondent No. 3 as sarpanch is hereby quashed.

The court ordered no costs: "In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs."

Implications and immediate consequences:

The direct, operative effect is that the election declared for the named respondent was set aside on the ground that the supplementary electoral roll was illegally prepared in contravention of section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The opinion states that the pendency of an election petition before the prescribed authority did not constitute an absolute bar to the High Court granting relief under Article 226 where the electoral roll is shown to be illegal.
The court applied established authorities but emphasized that where the electoral roll is fundamentally illegal, an election held on that basis cannot be permitted to stand. The opinion does not expressly purport to create a novel legal doctrine beyond applying and reconciling cited authorities; its practical effect is to quash the election on the facts found.

This summary is confined to the statements and materials contained in the provided opinion. No information has been added that was not present in the text supplied.

Show full summary ...

Sher Singh Budh Singh And Another Petitioners v. The State Of Punjab And Others S

1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the election of respondent No. 8 as Sarpanch of village Kilianwali, Tehsil Muktsar. Petitioner No. 1 is a member of Sabha of that village and petitioner No. 2 is also a member of the Panchayat and Block Samiti, Larabi, apart from being a member of the Sabha of village Kilianwali. It is alleged in the petition that the electoral rolls of the Punjab Legislative Assembly pertaining to the Sabha area of village Kilianwali contained voters Nos. 1232 to 2130, 8343 to 8671 and 10281 to 10291—the total number of votes being 1239 out of which 4 were deleted leaving 1235 votes. The filing of the nomination papers was to take place on 27th December, 1963, and the poll was to be held on 28th December, 1983. It is unnecessary to mention all the allegations which have been made by the petitioners because in my opinion they are hardly worth noticing. The main and substantial allegation which calls for decision is that a supplementary list of 558 or 559 voters was illegally prepared from serial Nos. 10685 to 11243 and it is the legality of this roll which has been seriously challenged.

2. It has been alleged that the names of these voters were entered at more than one place and a list containing such names has been filed vide Annexure ‘E’. It is apparent from this list that the names of all the persons mentioned therein with few exceptions have been entered at more than one place. The correct number of such persons, who have been entered twice is 56 according to the petitioners' counsel and 5(1) according to the respondents' counsel. It is been urged in the petition and before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the election-was held on the basis of this kind of electoral roll it was wholly invalid.

3. In spite of an opportunity having been givers to the counsel for the respondents to file a more detailed return on the above point, all that has been stated now in the return filed on 9th December, 1964, is that the electoral rolls, on which the impugned election of Panchayat Kilianwali was held, were prepared according to the instructions and rules as stated in paragraph 9 of the petition. It has of been denied or stated in detail whether the names together with parentage which appear in Annexure ‘E’ represent the correct state of affairs or not, namelyi whether the names of the voters mentioned therein have or have of been entered at more than one place. Records were also sent for and it has of been shown that the names and parentage of the different voters who have been entered at more than one place were of different individuals and had been entered on their separate application made in accordance with the rules. In other words, there is hardly any challenge or denial of the allegation of the petitioners that the—names of these voters with few exceptions have been entered at more than one place in the supplementary roll.

4. Now section 18 of the Representation of the-People Act, 1950, which deals with, apart from other matters, the preparation of electoral rolls, lays down that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once. It is, therefore, obvious that the supplementary rule as prepared in the present case, was illegal. The learned counsel for the respondents has of been able to justify the inclusion or registration of the same voters at more than one place as indeed he could of in view of section 18, but he has contended strenuously firstly that even if elections was held on these-rolls there should be no ??? by this Court on the writ side it as much as an election petition has already been filed by the petitioners which is pending before the prescribed authority in which identical allegations have been made and secondly even if it is established that the rolls were defective, the petitioners can of succeed unless they show that the result of the election was materially affected thereby. My attention has been invited to section 13-0 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 1902, which gives the grounds for setting aside elections-Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13-0 of the-Act reads as under:

“(d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the elected person has been materially affected—

(ii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void.”

5. The argument raised is that if the same voter has voted twice, it would be improper reception of the vote being contrary to the provisions of section 18 in as much as a voter is entitled to exercise only one vote. It would therefore be in the province of the prescribed authority to decide on the evidence which could be adduced before it whether in fact any such votes were cast. If it is found that the same person did of exercise his vote more than once then there would be no grievance. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prescribed authority is totally debarred from going beyond the rolls and looking into the validity of the votes cast by the voters pursuant to the rules. It is said that it is settled law that the roll or the register of electors must be treated as final and the finality has been extended even qua the Election Tribunal. Reliance has been placed in this connection on my decision in Lekh Raj v. Cantonment Board, AIR 1958 Punj 350 and other authorities out of which S.B Javaregowda v. Lakkigowda, AIR 1958 Mys 73 may be mentioned. In that case it was held—

“The Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral roll and decide whether the particular voter has been validly enrolled or not. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal at best extends to the consideration of the validity or otherwise, (a) of the acceptance or rejection of the nomination and (b) of the holding of the election. It does of extend to a consideration of the correctness or otherwise of the electoral roll.”

6. This seems to be, with respect, the correct view and the learned counsel for the respondents has of been able to point to any authoritative decision to the contrary in which any such view has been expressed that it would be open to the prescribed authority in the present case to reject as invalid a vote which has been cast more than once by a voter who has been entered in the register at more than one place and who has voted in accordance with the entries in the register.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Lajpat Rai v. Khilari Ram, 82 Pun LR 377 which is a Bench decision in which it was stated that if from the point of view of the real object and scope of the rules the authorities have exercised their power so unreasonably or capriciously while preparing the rolls in violation of and of under the rules, then the rolls might well be struck down. It, however, does of mean that every defect or irregularity caused by the negligence or inefficiency or breach of rules by the authorities entrusted with the preparation of rolls must necessarily invalidate them but the Court should in each case examine the nature and extent of the breach, the circumstances in which it has been committed, and then determine whether the roll in question is so imperfect and improper as to invalidate the election held on its basis. In that case the election was actually set aside on the ground that the roll was of valid, having of been prepared in conformity with the Municipal Election Rules, 1952.

8. This decision was commented upon in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dev Prakash v. Babu Ram, 63 Pun LR 485 : (AIR 1961 Punj 429 (FB)), in which Dulat J., who had agreed with the judgment in the previous case while delivering the judgment of the Full Bench observed that an election is in its nature an expensive and time-consuming process, and, if it is to be disturbed after the whole process has been gone through, there must be shown to have existed some material circumstance touching the substance of the election and of merely technical breach of a rule.

9. Everybody agrees that if the very foundation of the Election, namely, the electoral roll is illegal no election on its basis can proceed or be allowed to stand, but that does of mean that any kind of defect in the roll, however, technical in its nature, will suffice to reach such a conclusion. With regard to the decision in 62 Pun LR 377 distinction was drawn and certain observations were made which according to the learned counsel for the respondents have the effect of overruling the Bench decision. It is of possible to say that the Bench view was overruled, but what was said was that

“the present case does of resemble that case, and the whole controversy in the present case is whether the electoral roll can be called illegal because the preliminary roll, to which objections were invited was partly prepared before the direction of the State Government for such preparation was received or because the existing Assembly roll was adopted as its basis.”

10. It does of follow, therefore, that the previous decision was overruled. On the other hand, it is obvious from the observations, to which reference has already been made, that if the electoral roll is illegal no election on its basis can proceed or be allowed to stand. It will necessarily depend on the facts of each case whether the roll is illegal. It is clear that the supplementary roll in the present case was prepared in a wholly illegal manner inasmuch as the names of a large number of voters were entered at more than one place, which constitutes a clear violation and contravention of section 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. I am, therefore, satisfied that the elections held on the basis of such roll were altogether invalid and the mere fact that the election petition is pending will of constitute a bar to the grant of appropriate relief in the present writ petition. As it has been held by me that the Tribunal is of entitled or empowered to go into the question of illegality or illegal preparation of the rolls it is open to this Court to interfere in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226. In the result this petition is allowed and the election of respondent No. 3 as sarpanch is hereby quashed.

11. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.

G.I/V.R.B/D.V.C

12. Petition allowed.

Sher Singh Budh Singh And Another Petitioners v. The State Of Punjab And Others S

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sher Singh Budh Singh And Another Petitioners v. The State Of Punjab And Others S

Comments