Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: article 173 in Dadi Veerahadra Rao vs Returning Officer, Constituency No. ... on 17 May, 2005Matching Fragments
(a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate either is qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely:
Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191.
Part II of this Act and Sections 4 and 14 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1962); or
(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34; or
(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine.
40. In Amrit Lal Ambalal Patel's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that nomination paper filed by a candidate is to be rejected if the candidate is not qualified under Article 173 of the Constitution of India on the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations and acceptance of the nominations though he is qualified to contest on the date of the election. Such election has to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that the nomination paper was improperly accepted. The Apex Court further held that the nomination of the candidate is liable to rejected for not fulfilling the Constitutional requirements under Article 173, as the candidate has not attained the age of 25 years on the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers. Since the nomination of the candidate was liable to be rejected on this ground it must be held that his nomination had been improperly accepted. On the face of it, the consequence of the improper acceptance of the nomination was that the result of the election was materially affected because he was declared as duly elected when he was not entitled to that right on the ground that his nomination paper should have been rejected by the Returning Officer under Section 36(2)(a) of the Act. The election of the candidate was, therefore, declared void.
42. In Birad Mal Singhvi's case (supra), the nomination paper of a candidate was rejected on the ground that the said candidate, who was an elector in other constituency, has not filed a copy of the electoral roll of the other constituency or the relevant part thereof or the certified copy and the relevant entry of the roll either along with the nomination papers or at the time of scrutiny before the Returning Officer, and therefore, his nomination paper was rejected for non-compliance of Section 33(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance of Section 33(5) of the Act is mandatory in nature and as such his nomination is liable to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the Act. In the said case, it was also held that the candidate was not qualified to contest for not complying with the requirements of Article 173 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination papers.
44. In Sushil Kumar's case (supra), as the returned candidate failed to rebut the allegation that he was underage which is a disqualification under Article 173 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that the Returning Officer illegally accepted the nomination form of the returned candidate and therefore, declared his election as void. It was further held that a person who is disqualified under Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India could not be permitted to occupy an office for which he is disqualified under the Constitution.