DR. ANUP SINGH versus SHRI ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER

DR. ANUP SINGH versus SHRI ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER

There was substantial compliance with s. 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as the copies were signed by the petitioner even if the attestation phrase 'true copy' was absent; hence, dismissal under s. 90(3) was not warranted. The ballot paper bearing the words 'One, Two, Three' constituted writing by which, in the context of a small electorate, the voter could be reasonably identified; thus, the ballot was rightly rejected under r. 73(2)(d) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. Anup Singh; Respondent No. 1: Suri Abdul Ghani; Respondent No. 2: Lachhman Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the Punjab High Court Dated May 30, 1962 in F.a.o. Nos. 3/e and 4/e of 1962
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs (one set of hearing fee).
Legal Topics
Validity of Ballot Paper, Compliance With Statutory Requirements, Identification of Elector, Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Election Law Validity of Ballot Paper Compliance With Statutory Requirements Identification of Elector Substantial Compliance Doctrine

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Anup Singh

Appellant

Suri Abdul Ghani

Respondent No. 1

Lachhman Singh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the Punjab High Court Dated May 30, 1962 in F.a.o. Nos. 3/e and 4/e of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election petitions should have been dismissed under s. 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for non-compliance with s. 81(3)
  2. 2 Whether a ballot paper bearing writing by the elector was rightly rejected under r. 73(2)(d) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961

Ratio Decidendi

There was substantial compliance with s. 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as the copies were signed by the petitioner even if the attestation phrase 'true copy' was absent; hence, dismissal under s. 90(3) was not warranted. The ballot paper bearing the words 'One, Two, Three' constituted writing by which, in the context of a small electorate, the voter could be reasonably identified; thus, the ballot was rightly rejected under r. 73(2)(d) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs (one set of hearing fee).

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • The conclusion of the High Court is affirmed.