9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereto by the said Government (vide Section 9 of the Act). 3. In suppression of the earlier notification, the Central Government by its Notification No. S.O. 1682 dated 13th April, 1973 has constituted five Regional Constituencies as set out below under column No. 1. The number of persons to be elected from the said five constituencies is also set out against them in column No. 2. (See table on next page) 4. section 23 of the Act enables the Central Council in respect of a constituency determined by the Central Government to advise and assist it in all matters concerning its functions. Not withstanding the same, the Central Council has constituted only 5 Regional councils for the very constituencies determined by the Central Government with representation on those councils as here under :- (a) Western India Regional Council 16 (b) Southern India Regional Council 12 (c) Eastern India Regional council 8 (d) Central India Regional council 5 (e) Northern India Regional council 7 5. The term of Central and Regional Councils is three years and the present of the present council is due Column No. 1 Column No. 2 Name of the Regional Constituency. Number of persons to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners that are residents of Bangalore, communicated to their residential addresses read thus; "D. L. Suresh Babu - Petitioner in W. P. 20488/1982. On a scrutiny of the nominations, it is found that the name of the constituency from which you propose to seek election has not has not been specified correctly in any of them. There is no constituency 1. The last date for receipt of nominations 22nd May, 1962. 2. The last date for withdrawal of nominations 18th June 1982 3. The last date for permission to vote by post. (a) Under Regulations 90 (2) where there is a permanent change in the address of a member from the address published in the list of voters to another place beyond a radius of 10 miles (16 Kms) from the polling booth or where a member is actually residing beyond a radius of 10 miles (16 Kms ) from the polling booth allotted to him. 22nd June, 1982. (b) Under Regulation 90(3) where a member expects to be away from his permanent address on the date of election 7th June, 1982. 4. The date or dates of polling 6th and 7th Aug. 1982. 5. The date for receipt of voting papers by post 14th, Aug 1982. 6. The date for counting of votes 16th t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Election Tribunal for the very reliefs and these are not fit cases for interference of this court at this stage. Respondent No. 2 has not filed any returns, but supported respondent No. 1. 12 Sriyuths K. Srinivasan and U. L Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitioners Nos. 20488 and 20743 of 1982, respectively have contended that the rejection of nominations of their respective clients, was unauthorised and in any event was on an extremely technical ground but was not for a defect of a substantial character on which ground only they can be rejected and these are fit cases for interference of this court at this very stage not withstanding the remedy of an election petition available to them after the completion of elections. In support of their contention, counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on a Division Bench ruling of this court in K.M. Muddammallappa v. Election Officer and Revenue Inspector, Village Panchayat Constituency, Tlakad Hobli (1961) 39 Mys LJ 319 and a ruling Rama Jois J., in Fakirappa Yellappa Kali v. Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad (1979) I Kant LJ 153. 13. Sri. K.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in justifying the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ao v. Union Government (1972) 2 Mys LJ 302 : (AIR 1974 Mys 39). 18. When the petitioners, who are residents of Bangalore, sent their nomination papers by Registered post as required by the Regulations to Delhi and the Institute dispatched its orders to Bangalore, a part of the cause of action, if not whole, without any doubt has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. If that is so that court has jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, notwithstanding the Institute and the Panel have their offices at Delhi. For these reasons, there is no merit in the objection to the jurisdiction of this Court raised by the learned counsel for the respondent and I reject the same. 19. On the completion of elections, the petitioners can challenge their rejection of nominations in an election petition before a Tribunal constituted under the Act and the Tribunal can grant the very reliefs sought and such other reliefs that are appropriate is not and cannot be disputed. On this premise Sri Jain has urged that an intermediate challenge upsetting the process of election for which all arrangements have been made, that too in the absence of all persons whose nominations have been acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, that was then in force, reviewing all the earlier cases of the Supreme Court and this Court ruled that it was open to this Court to interfere with the rejection of a nomination in exceptional circumstances. With the Amendment of Article 226 by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, that part of the discussion in Fakirappa Yellappa Kali's case, dealing with the existence of an alternative remedy is no longer relevant and the position is that the law as it stood prior to 1-2-1977 or prior to the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution stand restored. 22. In Hassan Uzzaman's case (1982) 2 SCC 218, that being the very latest case, the full reasons of which are still to be given, the Supreme Court has not expressed a different view than the one expressed by this Court in Muddamallappa's case (1961) 39 Mys LJ 319). In this view, I do not consider it profitable to refer to a catena of rulings of various other High Courts of the country relied on by Sri Jain, J., therefore proceed to examine the merits and see whether the circumstances of these cases justify this circumstances of these cases justify this Court's interference at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation added to explain or elaborate Regulation No. 67 (10), but it is an independent provision. As an independent provision, it operates independently without reference to the four infirmities set out earlier. The power of the panel is not circumscribed by the four infirmities enumerated in Regulation 67 (10) only. In this view the panel had the power to reject the nominations, if there were defects of a substantial character. Hence, it is now necessary to examine whether the rejections are in conformity with Explanation I. 27. Sri. Jain who argued the cases with fairness and thoroughness, did not take the stand that the defects in the nomination fall within the four categories enumerated in Regulation No. 67 (10) of the Regulations viz., (I) that the candidate was ineligible to stand for election; or (ii) that the proposer or the seconder was not qualified to subscribe to the nomination of the candidate in the appropriate form; or (iii) that the signature of the candidate or of the proposer or the seconder is not genuine; or (iv) that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of Regulations 65 or 66. If a nomination paper suffers from any of the four infirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the constituencies at certain places only and not at all the places. The mere omission of the words 'India' or 'region' at some places of the nominations are trivial and inconsequential. 33. In their nomination papers the petitioners have set out all the material details relating to the constituencies. Anybody examining them without any doubt and hesitation can hold that the respective nominations are filed to the respective constituencies and they are in conformity with the substantial requirement of law. 34. An Act must be read as a whole and effect must be given to every part of the statute is elementary. As I apprehend the mandate of Explanation-I of Regulation 67 (10) borrowed from similar provisions found in other election laws of the country, directs the panel or the returning officer to ignore technical defects in a nomination paper and reject it only for defects of a substantial character only. But unfortunately, the panel has made a mountain out of a molehill and has rejected them on extremely technical considerations contrary to the specific and clear mandate of explanation-I of Regn. No. 67 (10) of the Regulations. Without any doubt, the panel, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance are meant for the use of candidates and officers that participate in the conduct of elections. With great respect, every one of the reasons on which Mohan. J., has held that the defect was of a substantial character, is opposed to the very meaning attached to those terms and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, I cannot, therefore, persuade myself to subscribe to the view expressed by Mohan, J., in Sivarama Krishnnan's case. 39. The ration of the ruling of this Court in K. Rahman Khan v. Secretary; the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (W.P. No. 1517 of 1973 decided on 16-7-1973) does not bear on the point. So also the rejection of Writ Petition number 4959 of 1976 decided on 22-6-1976, at the preliminary hearing stage, does not mean that this court cannot interfere on a fuller examination in another case. 40. The petitioners have approached this court without any loss of time. Sri Jain also stated that though there was no order of stay, the Institute had not precipitated the matters and had not even printed and dispatched the ballot paper so far. The poll for the Central Council and Regional Council is scheduled to be held on 6th and 7th Aug, 1982. When t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
