V RAMIREDDI Vs. R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These-two writ petitions raise a common question of law and can therefore be conveniently disposed of under ona common judgment. It appears that the petitioners filed their nomination papers. It war subsequently revealed that another nomination proposing another candidate was also subscribed by the same proposer in both the cases. The Returning Officer on this ground alone rejected the nomination papers of both these petitioners. The petitioners took the matter in appeal as is provided by the law. The appeals also were rejected on the ground that the nomination papers have been rightly rejected in pursuance of the Government instructions given in Memorandum No. 708/Pts. VIII/64-2 dated 14th, May-, 1964. These orders are now impugned in these writ petitions. Under rule 4 (2) of the Rules relating to Conduct of Election of Members to Gram Panchayats, it is laid down :

(2.) The rule thus prohibits an elector from subscribing to nomination papers for more than one candidate. He can, therefore, validly subscribe to a nomination paper as proposer of one candidate. It is true that the rule does not say as to what will happen if this rule is violated. If an elector signs as proposer for more than one candidate, it is the second nomination paper to which he has subscribed as poposer which would be bad, as it would be violating rule 4 (2). It cannot-however, invalidate the first nomination paper of a candidate which he had validly signed as proposer. The instructions given in the abovesaid Memorandum by the Government do net have legal force, they are mere executive instructions and are not binding upon the Returning Officer. The Retruning Officers are expected to use their own discretion which should be in accordance with law and not to be guided by the executive instructions. It is true that the said instructions ay that where a person has proposed the nomination of more than one candidate under rule 4 of the Election Rules, both the nominations should be rejected. These instructions, however, in our opinion are inconsistent with rule 4(2) of the Rule A plain reading of rule 4 would indicate that what is prohibited is the nomination paper of second! candidate, but that would not invalidate the signing of the nomination paper of the first candidate proposed by the elector. It has, therefore first to determine which nomination paper was iirst presented to the Returning Officer in point of time. The first nomination paper to which an elector has ubscribed his signature as proposer to a candidate and the fist presented would be valid and it cannot be invalidated merely because the same elector signed as a proposer for another candidate and his nomination paper was subsequently presented to the Returning Officer, We are fortified in our conclusion by the following two decisions of this Court : Sriram Surma v. Amalok Singh, and Bhagavantha Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur . It is contended that both the nomination papers in these writ petitions in point of time are presented earlier and therefore they would be deemed to have been validly subscribed by the proposer. If the same proposer has subscribed and subsequently presented another nomination paper of another candidate, it is that nomination paper which would be invalid.

(3.) In the view which we have taken, the order passed by the Returning Officer and by the appellate authority become bad in law and therefore will have to be quashed. The nomination papers filed by both the writ petitioners should be considered on merits and further procedure in regard to the election should be followed. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. Petitions allowed.