ABDUL JALEE Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Governmens Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Ext. PI is the notification issued by the Returning Officer for conducting election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent, Co-operative Bank. As per the schedule mentioned in Ext. PI, nomination papers are to be submitted on or before 18-8-1994, 19-8-1994 is the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination and 20-8-94 is the last date for withdrawal. After secruiny, the 4th respondent, Returning Officer finalised the list of contesting candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they submitted their nominations, both the nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer without communicating any reason to them.

(3.) The prayer in this original petition is for calling the records dealing with the rejection of the petitioners nomination papers and quash the same by a writ of certiorari and for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent. Returning Officer to include the name of the petitioners' in the list of candidates in the ballot paper in the election to be conducted on 11-9-1994 and make alteration in the ballot paper. When the original petition came up for admission before me on 31-8-1994, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. When the matter came up for further hearing today the learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the rejection of the 1st petitioner's nomination is for a valid reason namely that he did not mention in the nomination paper specifically in the Ward to which he is contesting in the election, which is a mandatory requirement. Learned Government Pleader submits that altogether there are 9-wards, out of which there are 7 general wards. Two wards are reserved, one (each) for scheduled castes and scheduled tribe and the other for women candidates. (2) Admittedly, the 1st petitioner was contesting to the general ward. Nomination contains a specific column, being column No. 3 wherein the contesting candidate is directed to give details of tne ward to which he is contesting. In column No. 3, instead of indicating the specific ward to which the 1st petitioner seeks to contest in the election, all that is mentioned is 'general'. According to me, the 1st petitioner's nomination paper is liable to be rejected as his nomination paper is vague as to the ward to which the 1st petitioner seeks to contest. Therefore, I am of the view that the Returning Officer was right in rejecting the 1st petitioner's nomination and the 1st petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court.