KANAKMAL Vs. SUPERVISING OFFICER, TAHSILDAR, JAORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern the disposal of M. Ps. Nos. 58, 60 and 61, all of 1964.

(2.) THE petitioners in these four applications under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seek writs of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Supervising Officer, Jaora, rejecting their nomination papers for election to the Jaora Municipality from different wards of the Municipality. The orders of the Supervising Officer rejecting the nomination papers were upheld in appeal by the Sub -divisional Officer, Jaora. The petitioners pray for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing also the decisions in appeal of the Sub -divisional Officer. They also pray that the Supervising Officer be directed to accept their nomination papers and declare them as having been elected unopposed from the wards for which they filed their nomination papers. 2. The nomination papers of the applicants were rejected by the Supervising Officer on a common ground, namely, that each of them had failed to make a declaration in his nomination paper about the choice of symbols as required by rule 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, (hereinafter called the Rules); and that thus there was a non -compliance on the petitioners' part with clause (i) of rule 13 (1) of the rule. The Sub -divisional Officer, Jaora, agreed in appeal with the view taken by the Supervising Officer.

(3.) SHRI Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the omission on the part of the petitioners to make a declaration in the nomination paper indicating their preferences for symbol was only a technical defect of an unsubstantial character not entailing the rejection of the nomination papers. On the other hand, the argument of Shri Garg, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in all the petitions, submitted on the authority of Brijendralal vs. Jwalaprasad, AIR 1960 SC 1049, is that the omission of the petitioners to give in their nomination papers a declaration indicating their choice about symbols totally invalidated the nomination papers.