DHARAM SINGH RATHI versus HARI SINGH M.L.A. & ORS.

DHARAM SINGH RATHI versus HARI SINGH M.L.A. & ORS.

The non-supply of an adequate postal address and failure to properly authenticate a thumb-impression are substantial defects under Section 33(1) of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination papers, and the High Court was correct in dismissing the election petition.

Parties
Appellant: Dhaea.m Singh Rathi; Respondent No.1: Hari Singh M.L.A.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 May 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8 December 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 13 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Nomination Paper Rejection, Postal Address Requirement, Authentication of Thumb Impression
Election Law Nomination Paper Rejection Postal Address Requirement Authentication of Thumb Impression

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhaea.m Singh Rathi

Appellant

Hari Singh M.L.A.

Respondent No.1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8 December 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 13 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of nomination papers for non-supply of adequate postal address was valid under s. 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether failure to properly authenticate a thumb impression renders a nomination paper liable to rejection.

Ratio Decidendi

The non-supply of an adequate postal address and failure to properly authenticate a thumb-impression are substantial defects under Section 33(1) of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination papers, and the High Court was correct in dismissing the election petition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal is dismissed with costs payable to respondent no. 1 alone.