KADETHOTADA GULAPPA BASAPPA Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a candidate for the election of members to constitute the Panchayat of the village of Naregal situated in Ron Taluks, Dharwar District. Respondents 2 to 11 also were candidates for the aforesaid election. At the scrutiny of the nomination papers the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected. The elections were held on 1 -11 -1960 and the result was declared on 2 -11 -1960. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 16/1960 before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ron, challenging the result of the elections aforesaid.

(2.) UNDER Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it is provided that on or before the date appointed under clause (d) of rule 7, each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the candidate, between the hours of eleven O' clock in the forenoon and three o' clock in the afternoon, deliver to the Election Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under rule 7, a nomination paper completed in such one of the forms 2A or 2B as may be appropriate and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency, as proposer. Under the provisions of form 2A and sub -rule (4) of rule 8 of the rules referred to above, the nomination paper should contain the number of the proposer in the list of voters and on the presentation of a nomination paper the Election Officer should satisfy himself that the names and the electoral roll numbers of the candidate and its proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as entered on the list of voters or in the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly. There is also a proviso under rule 8(4) empowering the Election Officer to permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regard to the said names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the list of voters or the electoral roll of the Legislative Assembly, as may be necessary.

(3.) IN the petitioner's election petition it is alleged that the proposer had put the correct number, viz., 1658 but the Returning Officer with ulterior motives altered the number to 1659 and therefore the rejection of the nomination paper is invalid. The petitioner further contended that even though the number mentioned in the nomination paper did not tally with that of the proposer on the electoral roll, it was incumbent on the Electoral Officer to satisfy himself about the identity of the proposer and should have permitted the petitioner to amend the nomination and to put in the correct number of the proposer in the electoral roll.