NARAYANA V Vs. ELECTION OFFICER ALWAL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Election Commission ('the Commission' for brevity) in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 243-ZA of the Constitution of India read with Section 10-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act' for brevity) and Section 9 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 ('HMC Act' for brevity) as applicable to other Corporations, issued notifications on 12-2-2000 calling upon the voters in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations to elect Chairpersons/Mayors/Ward members. In accordance with the notifications issued by the Commission, various Election Authorities issued election notifications on 14-2-2000. As per the election notifications, the last date for filing nominations in the Municipalities and Corporations is 21-2-2000. The various Election Officers conducted scrutiny of all the nominations for the offices of Chairpersons/Mayors/Ward members on 22-2-2000. The Election Officers rejected the nominations and passed orders of rejection. In all these writ petitions, the persons who filed their nominations for contesting elections to the wards in various Municipalities have approached this Court questioning the rejection orders and praying for consequential directions to the Election Officers of the Various Municipalities to permit the petitioners to contest in the elections for Ward members to be held on 9-3-2000. As similar questions of law arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order at the admission stage.

(2.) In W.P. No.2969 of 2000 'the petitioner's nomination for contesting for Ward No.20 of Alwal Municipality was rejected on 22-2-2000 by the Election Officer on the ground that the petitioner failed to sign the declaration in Form No.1. Sri V. Venkataramana, who has made leading submission in this batch of writ petitions, has submitted that the defect of submitting nomination form with unsigned declaration is not of substantial character and, therefore, under second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the A.P. Municipal Councils/Nagar Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1965 (hereafter called the 'Election Rules'), the Election Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination. It is further contended that the petitioner has obtained two nomination forms, filled both of them and as he was suffering from B.P. and Diabetes, in confusion he filed the nomination with unsigned declaration and on the date of scrutiny he was ready with another nomination form with duly signed declaration and, therefore, his nomination ought to have been accepted. The learned Counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Rules 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Election Rules. It is his submission that when the rejection of nomination is arbitrary, Art.243-ZG(b) of the Constitution is not a bar for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) In W.P. No.3032 of 2000, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Election Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner for contesting as member of Ward No.41 of Gudur Municipality on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. According to Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 9-12-1998 the petitioner participated in the tenders called for by the Gudur Municipality, that the tender itself was cancelled on 12-4-1999, questioning the cancellation, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.11043 of 1999 and on 19-2-2000 this Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and, therefore, the disqualification under clause (h) sub-section (2) of Section 15 is not attracted.