G N R UNNITHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two original petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the Executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocate's Association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the Advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O.P.No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was also given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in Court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh K. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is another column for putting membership number. In the first column, only name can be written. With regard to the fourth nomination paper, the only ground taken is that eventhough Suresh K. B. itself is written membership number is also written along with the name Suresh K. B. With regard to the fifth nomination paper, name was correctly written as Suresh K. B. and is tally with the register. It is proposed by one Binod K.V.and seconder by Ramachandran M. Sri Ramachandran's membership number is also written. But it is stated that there is a spelling mistake as the letter 'D' was accidently omitted. Therefore, instead of Ramachandran it is written as Ramachanran.

(2.) On going through the file which was produced by the Returning Officer, there is no dispute regarding identity of the petitioner. Rule 42 of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Rules and Regulations, 1971, the only provision regarding acceptance of nomination, reads as follows :

(3.) Parties to the case submitted that they want an early decision on the point before the due date of election and they will accept the decision as there is no mala fides against the petitioners. It is settled law that nomination paper cannot be rejected in the absence of a substantive mistake. After analysing all the decisions A. Pasayat, J. (as he then was) in Shri Somnath Rath v. Shri Bikram Keshari Arukh, AIR 1999 Orissa 119 held as follows (at page 123) :