Dismissed¶38

Azmat Khan v. Khillan Singh & Others

Supreme Court8 Nov 19831983 INSC 171 · [1984] 1 S.C.R. 7951983 INSC 171

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Election appeal; recrimination petition under Section 97 Representation of the People Act 1951; necessity and effect of recrimination; agreed recount binding all parties; alleged counting errors by Returning Officer; returned candidate who recriminated; Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal [1964] 6 SCR 54 referred to and distinguished; Punjab and Haryana High Court Election Petition No. 2 of 1982 (judgment 11 January 1983); 1980 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, Hathin constituency No. 50; Azmat Khan v. Khillan Singh & Ramjilal; appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and, in the circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs. ¶38

Azmat Khan versus Khillan Singh & Others — Election Law | Supreme Court (1984)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and, in the circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 1 (Khillan Singh), who obtained the highest number of valid votes at the recount agreed to by all parties, could lawfully be declared elected, notwithstanding the appellant's submission founded on Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal that even if the result had gone in favour of respondent No. 1 he could not have been declared elected.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal was of no assistance to the appellant because the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable: in that case the returned candidate did not recriminate as provided under section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that was the important ground on which the Court there declined to entertain an attack on the petitioner's alternative claim.

¶36

Key takeaways

Unlike in Jabar Singh, the appellant had admittedly recriminated, and one of the grounds in the recrimination petition related to the errors committed at the time of the counting of the votes of respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer.ratio¶36
The appellant had also agreed to the recounting of the votes secured by all the parties.ratio¶36
The decision of the High Court is in accordance with the result of the recount ordered by it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Azmat Khan v. Khillan Singh & Others (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1983, decided 8 November 1983, Fazal Ali and Venkataramiah JJ.) - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sec. 97 - Recrimination petition - necessity and effect. In the 1980 election from Hathin Assembly constituency (No. 50), Haryana, the appellant was returned with 12,828 votes against Khillan Singh's 12,655 and Ramjilal's 12,213. The defeated candidates filed election petitions; the appellant filed a recrimination petition alleging, inter alia, errors in the counting of respondent No. 1's votes; all parties agreed to a recount and to be bound by its result. At the recount Khillan Singh secured 12,751 votes (the highest) to the appellant's 12,698; the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellant's election and declared Khillan Singh elected. Held: Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 54, relied on by the appellant, distinguished - there the returned candidate had not recriminated under Sec. 97, whereas here the appellant had admittedly recriminated, had pleaded counting errors against respondent No. 1, and had agreed to the recount of all parties' votes; the High Court's decision was in accordance with the recount it ordered. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

795

t '

AZMATKHAN.

KHILLAN SINGH & OTHER.S

Nov.ember 8, 1983

[S • .MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND E.S. VBl'IKATARAMIAH, JJ.J. epresentti~~ of the P;op/e Act, 1951-Sec. 97-Recrimination PetitionNecessity and effect of. . ' · .

¶10

The .appellant, who was· a returned candidate, filed a re~riminatiori petition in the election petition filed by the·first respondent and another. As ·a result Or the Tecouflt to. which all the parti.es had agreed;··the High cOurt declared he first. resPondent .as e.lected. Henc this·api)e·a1.

¶11

c .

¶12

Dismissing thC appeal.

¶13

HELD : The case of Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal. on. which the ·appellant relies· iS.Or no assistance to· him ·because t_he facts of the present Case,, are ceS:rly· ·distinguishable from that.case. In.that case the r.eturned candidate did ilot . recriminate as provided under sec. 97 of the Representation or the People Act, 1951. · In .the instant Case, the appellant. had admittedly recriminated and in• the recri.mination petition one of the .grounds taken related to the-errors "committed at the time of.. the counting or" votes Of the ls. r.espondent by .tire Returning Officer .• The appellant had· a"ls·o agree~d tb the rect?unting of the votes secured by all·the parties. [796 E-OJ

¶14

¶15

... E

¶16

Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 54, referred to and distigUised.

¶17

¶18

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1983.

¶19

Civil. Appeal No. 236 of · •

¶20

¶21

. Froin tht Judgment and Order dated the J Ith January, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Co,urt.in Election Petition No.2 of f982.

¶22

¶23

4 M; C. Bhandare and Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.

¶24

Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Respondent.

¶25

¶26

. The Order of the Court was ,delivered by

¶27

FAZAL ALI, J. This election appeal arises out of the election. held in 1980 from the constituency No. 5() called Hathin to th~

[1984) .1 s.c.ll.

796

. SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS

¶32

•

¶33

•

¶34

Legisiative Assembly of the State of Haryana •. At the counting held A by the Returning Officer, the Appellant secured 12,828 votes whereas respondent No. I Khillan Singh got 12,655 votes and one Ramjii'!"I got 12,2 l3 votes. 'Accordingly the .appellant was declared as elected. · Aggrieved by the result of the election, Khillan Singh and Ramjilal filed election petitions in the High Court. In the course of the election petition, the appellant filed a recrimination petition in which B one of the grounds related to tho errors committed in the co \In ting of votes ofrespbndent No .. I. All the parties agreed that the court should Order a recount and that . the parties wpu!d be bo'und by the result of the recount. · The recount was accordingly held as a result of which Kbillan Singh respondent No. I got 12,751 i.e. tl).e highest . c number of valid votes and the appellant got 12,698 votes. In view· of the higher votes secured by Khillan Singh respondent No. I ·at the «ecount ordered by the High Court, bis petition was allowed, the election of the appellant wa.s set aside and Khillan Singh was declared as elected. This appeal' is filed against the. decision of the ' High Court.

¶35

¶36

In support ofthe appeal,. Mr. Bhandare with the, usual inge. nuity pressed only one point before. us. .He submitted on the basis pf the Judgment ofthis .Court in labor Singh v. Genda Lal(') that even if the result had gone in favour of respondent No. I he could· E • not have been declared elected. We have gone. through this authority and we find that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In the decision referred to above the returned candidate did ·not recriminate as provided.under section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. and this was the important ground on which the Court said that it could not make any attack against the alternative F claim made by the petitioner. In the instant case, the appellant bad . admittedly recriminated and in the recrimination petition one 'of the . grounds taken related t.o the . errors committed at the time of . the counting· of .votes of the Ist respondent by. the Returnil)g Officer. The."appellant bad also ag~ed to the re.counting of the votes sec!lred by all the parties. In these circumstances, this case does not appear G to be of any assistance to the appellant. The decision :of the High . •· Court is.in accordance with the result of the recount ordered by it. ·•

¶37

)

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.·

¶39

¶40

H.S.K . ApJeal dfamissed. · . (1) ; (196416 S.C,R. 54.

¶41

H.S.K .

¶42