SARDAR AMOLAK SINGH Vs. SRIRAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the only point to be considered is what interpretation has to be put on Rule 8 (2) of the Rules made under the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act. In order to appreciate the point raised, we have to refer to certain facts. In the year 1962, elections were held to Dornakal Municipality. In Constituency No. 4, the appellant, the 1st respondent and one Nandulal filed their nomination papers. The nomination papers of Sriram Sarma and Nandulal were subscribed by one Sunadhan. The Returning Officer rejected both these nomination papers and as there was no one else in the field, except the appellant, he was ultimately declared elected to the Constituency No. 4 in the Municipality of Dornakal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Returning Officer, the 1st respondent herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Warangal, who rejected the appeal holding that the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting both the nomination papers as there was no rule which permits that it is the second nomination paper which ought to be rejected in such circumstances. The validity of this order was challenged by the 1st respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before our learned brother. What was urged by the 1st respondent herein before our learned brother was that under rule 8 (2), his nomination paper could not be held invalid as it was first in point of time, and that the only nomination paper that could be rejected was that of Nandulal. Our learned brother accepted this contention having regard to rule 8 (2) of the rules made under the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act. In this appeal also, it is contended by Shri Triambak Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, that under rule 8 (2) not only the nomination paper of the 1st respondent herein can be held invalid, but that of Nandulal also. In order to appreciate this contention, we have to refer to rule 8 (2) of the Rules. It reads as follows :- " The persons whose names are registered in the electoral roll and who are not subject to any disqualification specified in section 11 may sign as many nomination papers as there are seats to be filled but no more. "

(2.) A reading of the above rule would show that a voter in the constituency can subscribe to as many nomination papers as there are seats to be filled. In the instant case, admittedly, there is only one seat to be filled. Thus, a voter can sign one nomination paper and no more. Sunadhan, who is a voter in the constituency, therefore, could have subscribed to one nomination paper validly. He could not under rule 8 (2) subscribe to more than one nomination paper as far as this constituency is concerned. On the 26th October, 1962 Sunadhan had subscribed in favour of the 1st respondent herein and again on 28th October, 1962, he has subscribed to another nomination paper in favour of Nandulal. As under the rule he could subscribe to only one nomination paper, he was prohibited from subscribing to the second nomination paper in favour of Nandulal. The question then arises whether in such a case both the nomination papers have to be held invalid or only the subsequent nomination paper. In the case of Burgoyne and others v. Collings and others, L.R. 1882 8 Q.B.D. 450. identical question had come up for consideration. That was also a case relating to the Municipal elections. There also there was a similar provision as rule 8 (2). The provision there was : "At any such election every candidate shall be nominated in writing ; the writing shall be subscribed by two enrolled burgesses of the borough or ward as proposer and seconder, and by eight other enrolled burgesses of such borough or ward as assenting to the nomination. ' Each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper, but the same burgesses, or any of them, may subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more '.

(3.) In this election there were four vacancies to be filled in, but five nomination papers were filed. The question arises whether all the nomination papers should be held invalid, or only the subsequent nomination paper. It was held that only the subsequent nomination paper could be held invalid and not all. A Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagavantha Reddy v. R.D.0., Guntur,1963 1 An.W.R. 54. while dealing with section 4 (i) (iii) read with rule 2-A (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act (XXXV of 1959) relying on the case of Burgoyne and others v. Callings and others, took a similar view.