Page 1

CA @ SLP(C)No.3829/2011

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7907   OF 2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 3829 OF 2011)

DEVENDRA PATEL                                Appellant (s)

                   VERSUS

RAM PAL SINGH & ORS.                          Respondent(s)

                       J  D  G  M  E  N  T

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  only  argument  canvassed  by  the  learned  

counsel for the appellant is that Jaswant Singh whose  

nomination  was  rejected  must  be  regarded  as  a  

'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) of the  

Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951  (for  short,  

'1951 Act') and since he has not been joined as a party  

respondent in the election petition although there is  

allegation  of  corrupt  practice  against  him,  the  

election petition is liable to be rejected.

3. The  High  Court has considered  this question  

and,  relying  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Mithilesh  Kumar  Sinha   Vs.  Returning  Officer  for  

Presidential  Election  &  Others1,   held  that  Jaswant  

1     AIR 1993 SC 20

Page 2

CA @ SLP(C)No.3829/2011

2

Singh could not be regarded as a 'candidate' as defined  

in Section 79(b) for the purpose of Section 82(b) and  

overruled  the  objection  regarding  non-joinder  of  

Jaswant Singh.

4. The  admitted  fact  is  that  Jaswant  Singh's  

nomination was rejected by the returning officer as he  

was found to be disqualified. Jaswant Singh challenged  

the  order  of  the  returning  officer  rejecting  his  

nomination in a Writ Petition before the High Court,  

but that Writ Petition was not taken to the logical  

conclusion and it was dismissed.

5. The question is, whether Jaswant Singh is a  

'candidate' for the purpose of Section 82(b) ?  The  

answer  to  this  would  depend  on  whether  he  is  a  

'candidate' within the meaning of Section 79(b).

6. Section 79(b) reads as follows :-

“79. Definitions.─ In this Part and in Part  VII unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) x x x

(b)  “candidate” means a person who has      been  or  claims to have been duly      nominated  as  a  candidate at any       election;

(c) x x x (d) x x x (e) x x x (f) x x x”

Page 3

CA @ SLP(C)No.3829/2011

3

7. Section 82(b) reads as under :-  

“82. Parties to the petition.─ A petitioner shall  join as respondents to his petitioner ─ (a) x x x

(b)  any  other candidate  against  whom         allegations of any corrupt practice      are made in the petition.”

8. In  our  opinion,  in  view  of  the  admitted  

position that Jaswant Singh's nomination was rejected  

as he was disqualified, he cannot be considered to be  

duly nominated as a candidate at the election. Learned  

counsel for the appellant submits that his contention  

is founded on the expression “claims to have been duly  

nominated  as  a  candidate  at  any  election”  in  

Section 79(b) of the 1951 Act.  The expression “claims  

to have been duly nominated as a candidate” would not  

take within its fold a person whose nomination has been  

rejected  as  being  disqualified.   Such  person  cannot  

claim to be duly nominated as a candidate when he is  

not  qualified  to  contest  election.  In  view  of  this  

position,  Jaswant  Singh  is  not  covered  by  the  

expression 'candidate' in either of the two categories  

within the meaning of Section 79(b).

Page 4

CA @ SLP(C)No.3829/2011

4

9. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon  

a decision of this Court in  Mohan Raj  Vs.  Surendra  

Kumar  Taparia  &  Ors.2 in  support  of  his  contention.  

Mohan Raj2 was a case where one R.D. Periwal who was  

duly  nominated  candidate  but  withdrew  his  nomination  

later  was  not  joined  as  a  party  in  the  election  

petition though allegations of corrupt practice against  

him were made.  This Court held that a candidate who is  

duly  nominated  continues  to  be  candidate  for  the  

purpose of Section 82(b) in spite of withdrawal.  There  

is an important difference between that case and this  

case. In that case, R.D. Periwal was duly nominated  

candidate but he withdrew later, whereas here Jaswant  

Singh's nomination was rejected as he was found to be  

disqualified.   For  this  crucial  and  compelling  

difference, the statement of law in  Mohan Raj2 has no  

application.  Where  the  nomination  of  a  person  is  

rejected by the returning officer on the ground of such  

person being disqualified, in our view, such person is  

neither a duly nominated candidate nor he can claim to  

be duly nominated as a candidate.

2   (1969) 1 SCR 630

Page 5

CA @ SLP(C)No.3829/2011

5

10. The High Court did not commit any error in not  

treating Jaswant Singh as a 'candidate' for the purpose  

of Section 82(b) of the 1951 Act.

11. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )

NEW DELHI; ............................J. SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 ( MADAN B. LOKUR )