CHANDRABHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's nomination form has been rejected at the time of scrutiny under Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Election of Members Rules, 1994. The challenge, raised is to the order dated 12.2.2014 of the Election Officer, Zila Panchayat who has recorded that the name of the proposer on the nomination' form of the petitioner as Ramakant does not find place entered in the electoral list of Zila Panchayat Ward No. 11.

(2.) To explain this, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no scrutiny was carried out under Rule 18 or else the petitioner would have got the same corrected as it was only an error which was not substantial in character. The contention appears to be that the name Rameshwar appearing in the electoral roll is of the same person, namely, Ramakant and therefore there is no dispute of identity with regard to the two names.

(3.) Learned Counsel has also relied on the photostat copy of the bank passbook in this regard. He submits that in view of the evidence, which was already available with the petitioner, the nomination form could not have been rejected.