ARUN KUMAR BOSE versus MOHD. FURKAN ANSARI & OTHERS

ARUN KUMAR BOSE versus MOHD. FURKAN ANSARI & OTHERS

The rejection of 74 ballot papers for want of presiding officer's signature was not justified since the defect was attributable to the Presiding Officer's failure and the proviso to Rule 56(2) applied; pleadings in paragraph 9(i) of the election petition were adequate; in the absence of a recrimination petition under s. 97, the appellant could not attack the alternative claim; the High Court correctly set aside the appellant’s election and declared the respondent duly elected.

Parties
Appellant: Arun Kumar Bose; Respondent No. 1: Mohd. Furkan Ansari; Respondents: Respondents (others)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Patna High Court (election Petition No. 15 of 1980)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rejection of Ballot Papers, Recrimination Under S. 97
Election Law Representation of the People Act, 1951 Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Rejection of Ballot Papers Recrimination Under S. 97

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arun Kumar Bose

Appellant

Mohd. Furkan Ansari

Respondent No. 1

Respondents (others)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Patna High Court (election Petition No. 15 of 1980)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of 74 ballot papers for want of Presiding Officer's signature was justified under Rule 56(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 9(i) of the election petition contained material facts as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  3. 3 Scope and necessity of recrimination under Section 97 when additional relief is claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection of 74 ballot papers for want of presiding officer's signature was not justified since the defect was attributable to the Presiding Officer's failure and the proviso to Rule 56(2) applied; pleadings in paragraph 9(i) of the election petition were adequate; in the absence of a recrimination petition under s. 97, the appellant could not attack the alternative claim; the High Court correctly set aside the appellant’s election and declared the respondent duly elected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant’s election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly was set aside.
  • Respondent No. 1, Mohd. Furkan Ansari, declared duly elected.