JEET MOHINDER SINGH Vs. HARMINDER SINGH JASSI
LAWS(SC)-1999-10-82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
October 26,1999
JEET MOHINDER SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
HARMINDER SINGH JASSI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RATTAN AMOLSINGH V. ATMA RAM [REFERRED]JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED]
BANDIT SINGH VS. PRITAM SINGH [REFERRED]
NARBADA PRASAD VS. CHHAGANLAL [REFERRED]
PARMAR HIMATSINGH JUGATSINGH VS. PATEL HARMANBHAI NARSIBHAI [REFERRED]
RAM SINGH VS. COLLECTOR RAM SINGH [REFERRED]
BIRAD MAL SINGHVI VS. ANAND PUROHIT [REFERRED]
MANOHAR JOSHI CHHAGAN BHUJBAL VS. DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEB RUPWATE:DAMODAR TATYABA ALIAS DADASAHEB RUPWATE [REFERRED]
F A SAPA VAIVENGA SAIKAPTHIANGA ZALAWMA LALHUTHANGA VS. SINGORA:ZONUNTHARA:HRANGTHASANGA:T ROZAMA:ROMANA [REFERRED]
QUAMARUL ISLAM VS. S K KANTA [REFERRED]
KRIPA SHANKAR CHATTERJI VS. GURUDAS CHATTERJEE [REFERRED]
GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT VS. DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE [REFERRED]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. NITIN BHAURAO PATIL [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
BALDEV SINGH MANN VS. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-17] [REFERRED TO]KAMENG DOL VS. ATUM WELLY [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
P MOHAN VS. M K AZHAGIRI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-208] [REFERRED]
P C THOMAS VS. P M ISMAIL [LAWS(SC)-2009-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
ANANGA UDAYA SINGH DEO VS. RANGA NATH MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
HIMMAT KOTHARI VS. PARASMAL SAKLECHA [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-104] [REFERRED TO]
SAILENDRA KUMAR SARANGI VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2001-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
YODHAN PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
RENU CHADHA VS. ASHA KUMARI [LAWS(HPH)-2000-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM MASOOD VS. RASHEED MASOOD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
N SUDHAKAR RAO VS. DUGYALA SRINIVASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2007-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
SUNFLAG IRON AND STEEL MAZDOOR SABHA VS. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-121] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAN S O DASRATH BAGADE VS. NITIN S O JAYRAMJI GADKARI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARLAL BHAGWANDAS PUROHIT VS. VILAS MUTTEMWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-249] [REFERRED]
BALDEV SINGH MANN VS. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [LAWS(SC)-2008-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRA VS. M THANGAMUTHU [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED RIYAS P A VS. RAGHAVAN M K [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
P POOKUNHI KOYA VS. MUHAMMED HAMDULLAH SAYED [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
SULOCHANA KANDI VS. DIPTIREKHA KANDI [LAWS(ORI)-2004-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
S.P.RAJENDRAN VS. M.UDAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR MALIK VS. ELECTION OFFICER [LAWS(ORI)-2023-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
RABINARAYAN DAS VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH RATHORE VS. T.RAIA SINOH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
TASSADIQ HUSSAIN VS. MOHD RASHID QURESHI [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. PANDIT MUKESH MAYAK [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJIRAO B PATIL KAWEKAR VS. VILASRAO D DESHMUKH [LAWS(SC)-1999-12-37] [RELIED]
GOPI RAM AND OTHERS VS. SAJJAN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP BURAGOHAIN VS. PRANATI PHUKAN [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
A. KRISHNAN VS. T.P.R. SELVAME AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-461] [REFERRED TO]
V AROUMUGAM A K D VS. N RANGASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-160] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA BABBAR VS. SH. O.P. BABBAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
PUNIT RAI VS. DINESH CHAUDHARY [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-129] [REFERRED]
M P MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO LTD VS. SWATI SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH RAO S/O D. POLYA VS. MOHANLAL MARKAM S/O BHIKHRAI MARKAM [LAWS(CHH)-2016-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
DR. THANESHWAR PATILA VS. SMT. SAROJANI BANJARE AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
G MOHAN GOUD VS. STATE ELECTION OFFICER COMMISSION [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
ASHRAF YUNUS MOTIWALA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
YELGAONKAR DILIP MURLIDHAR VS. GUDAGE MOHANRAO PANDURANG [LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVINDRAO PATIL VS. THE MAHARASHTRA ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
THOKCHOM LOKESHWAR SINGH VS. THANGJAM MOHENDRO SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMESH VS. N S J JAYABAL @ AYYANAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. DEVENDRA SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO (PARA 27) 7.]
JYOTIN WAIKHOM VS. KHUMUKCHAM JOYKISHAN SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2020-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHAN MEENA VS. BHAJAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-288] [REFERRED TO]
PEEDIKA RAJANNA DORA VS. RAJENDRA PRATHAP BHANJ DEO [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-127] [REFERRED]
PUTTA MADHUKAR VS. DUDDILLA SRIHDAR ALIAS DUDDULLA SRIDHAR BABU [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
PUTTA MADHUKAR VS. DUDDILLA SRIHDAR ALIAS DUDDULLA SRIDHAR BABU [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEERA PAIKARA D/O LATE GANGARAM KANWAR VS. AMIT AJIT JOGI AMIT AISHWARYA JOGI S/O AJIT JOGI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-197] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN AND ANR VS. SHANTILAL BHAGCHAND KOCHETA JAIN & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-157] [REFERRED TO]
KHWAIRAKPAM LOKEN SINGH VS. RAJKUMAR IMO SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIDHAR PATEL VS. ABHAY DARE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-146] [REFERRED TO]
P ANGALANE VS. B KOBIGA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-167] [REFERRED TO]
K LAXMAN VS. NAYINI NARASIMHA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2008-1-80] [REFERRED]
B. RAVI YADAV VS. CHERKULA UDAY KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2012-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
AJAMEERA HARI NAIK VS. SUMAN RATHOD [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-27] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA PANCHAMRAO KHOPADE VS. SATISH JHAULAL CHATURVEDI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
ADAM NARSAYYA NARAYAN 34/260, BAPUJI NAGAR, "JODGALA", UTTAR SADAR BAZAAR, SOLAPUR VS. PRANITI SHINDE CANDIDATE OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS JAI JUI, 19, ASHOK NAGAR VIJAPUR ROAD, SOLAPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ARUN SHOURIE [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJMOHAN SINGH VS. SAROJ PANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2013-1-65] [REFERRED]
HISPREACHERING VS. LAMBOR MALNGIANG [LAWS(GAU)-2005-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL VS. SUNKARA KRISHNA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
ATUM WELLY VS. KAMENG DOLO [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER KUMAR JAIN VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY WAMAN DESHMUKH AND ORS. VS. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
First Land Acquisition Collector VS. Daulat Singh Surana [LAWS(CAL)-2002-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AKBAR S/O MOHAMMAD RASHID VS. ASHOK SAHU S/O PURUSHOTTAM SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-24] [REFERRED]
DAULAT SINGH SURANA VS. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-164] [REFERRED TO]
THANGJAM MOHENDRO SINGH VS. THOKCHOM LOKESHWAR SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
MADIRAJU VENKATA RAMANA RAJU VS. PEDDIREDDIGARI RAMACHANDRA REDDY AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
NOORUL HASSAN VS. NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-46] [REFERRED]
S. KUMARAVEL VS. S.V. SUKUMARAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-462] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICR REVENUE [LAWS(MPH)-2008-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN KONDIBA DHOBALE VS. KALPANA RAMESH NARHIRE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred by the appellant (petitioner before the High Court) feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dismissing the election petition laying challenge to the election of the respondent.
(2.)Legislative Assembly elections in the State of Punjab inclusive of '109 - Talwandi Sabo' constituency, took place in the months of January and February, 1997 as per the election schedule announced by the Election Commission of India. The nomination papers were to be filed from 13-1-1997 to 18-1-1997. The scrutiny of nomination papers was to take place on 21-1-1997 at 11 AM. The constituency was to go for polls on 7-2-1997. The counting of votes was to take place on 9-2-1997. The respondent filed his nomination papers on 16-1-1997. The appellant filed his nomination papers on 18-1-1997. At the scrutiny held on 21-1-1997, the nomination papers of the appellant and the respondent both were accepted. There were four other candidates whose nomination papers were also accepted. In all 92,586 votes were cast out of which 1226 votes were rejected as invalid. The appellant got 33,290 votes whereas the respondent got 36,483 votes. The respondent was declared elected by a margin of 3,193 votes. Other candidates namely S/Shri Jagdeep Singh, Jaspal Singh, Surjit Singh Tekedar and Gurcharan Singh got 11463, 8088, 1906 and 133 votes respectively. The appellant was the official candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal. The returned candidate i.e. the respondent was official candidate of Indian National Congress. The other four were the candidates of BSP, Janta Dal and independents.
(3.)According to the appellant, the nomination paper filed by the respondent was invalid and therefore should have been rejected. The respondent was also guilty of various acts of commission and omission which amounted to corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act, for short) and therefore his election was liable to be declared void and set aside. The learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court has found none of the allegations made by the appellant proved. Consequently, the election petition has been held liable to be dismissed. Here itself, it may be stated that though a number of corrupt practices were alleged as having been committed by the respondent in the election petition, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal, Shri Rajendra Sachar, the learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submissions only as regards some of the corrupt practices which in his submission should have been held proved as having been committed by the respondent. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the appellant has been towards the illegal acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent as regards which submissions have been made in very many details. In the succeeding paragraphs, we will notice the pleadings confined to the submissions made before us at the time of hearing.
(2.)Legislative Assembly elections in the State of Punjab inclusive of '109 - Talwandi Sabo' constituency, took place in the months of January and February, 1997 as per the election schedule announced by the Election Commission of India. The nomination papers were to be filed from 13-1-1997 to 18-1-1997. The scrutiny of nomination papers was to take place on 21-1-1997 at 11 AM. The constituency was to go for polls on 7-2-1997. The counting of votes was to take place on 9-2-1997. The respondent filed his nomination papers on 16-1-1997. The appellant filed his nomination papers on 18-1-1997. At the scrutiny held on 21-1-1997, the nomination papers of the appellant and the respondent both were accepted. There were four other candidates whose nomination papers were also accepted. In all 92,586 votes were cast out of which 1226 votes were rejected as invalid. The appellant got 33,290 votes whereas the respondent got 36,483 votes. The respondent was declared elected by a margin of 3,193 votes. Other candidates namely S/Shri Jagdeep Singh, Jaspal Singh, Surjit Singh Tekedar and Gurcharan Singh got 11463, 8088, 1906 and 133 votes respectively. The appellant was the official candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal. The returned candidate i.e. the respondent was official candidate of Indian National Congress. The other four were the candidates of BSP, Janta Dal and independents.
(3.)According to the appellant, the nomination paper filed by the respondent was invalid and therefore should have been rejected. The respondent was also guilty of various acts of commission and omission which amounted to corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act, for short) and therefore his election was liable to be declared void and set aside. The learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court has found none of the allegations made by the appellant proved. Consequently, the election petition has been held liable to be dismissed. Here itself, it may be stated that though a number of corrupt practices were alleged as having been committed by the respondent in the election petition, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal, Shri Rajendra Sachar, the learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submissions only as regards some of the corrupt practices which in his submission should have been held proved as having been committed by the respondent. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned senior Counsel for the appellant has been towards the illegal acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent as regards which submissions have been made in very many details. In the succeeding paragraphs, we will notice the pleadings confined to the submissions made before us at the time of hearing.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.