MATHURA PRASAD versus AJEEM KHAN

MATHURA PRASAD versus AJEEM KHAN

The Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper since neither the candidate nor his representative was present to cure the defect, and no statutory duty required the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry through the electoral roll to ascertain the candidate’s identity.

Parties
Appellant: Mathura Prasad; Respondent: Ajeem Khan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.2.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 41 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; election of Mathura Prasad restored.
Legal Topics
Nomination Paper Scrutiny, Returning Officer Duties, Substantial Character of Defect, Identity of Candidate in Electoral Roll
Election Law Nomination Paper Scrutiny Returning Officer Duties Substantial Character of Defect Identity of Candidate in Electoral Roll

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathura Prasad

Appellant

Ajeem Khan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.2.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 41 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of the nomination paper of Ramprakash by the Returning Officer was illegal as alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper since neither the candidate nor his representative was present to cure the defect, and no statutory duty required the Returning Officer to make a roving enquiry through the electoral roll to ascertain the candidate’s identity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; election of Mathura Prasad restored.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court dated 17th February, 1986 is set aside.
  • The Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination paper of Ramprakash.