HARBANS SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbans Singh petitioner, Dharam Pall and Uttam Singh respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively filed their nomination papers for seeking election to Ward No. 9 of Municipal Committee, Dasuya, district Hoshiarpur, a reserved constituency, on 27th April, 1979. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of the petitioner, but rejected the nomination papers of Dharam Pall and Uttam Singh respondents on the ground that the declaration about scheduled caste had not been made in the nomination papers. Aggrieved, both Dharam Pall and Uttam Singh filed revision petitions. They came up for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, who vide orders dated 10th May, 1979 accepted the revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Returning Officer. He noticed that the declarations in the nomination papers had not been verified. However, on the basis of other evidence like the certificate issued by the S.D.M. Dasuya that Dharam Pall and Uttam Singh belong to scheduled Castes and the same being attached with the nomination papers, he came to the conclusion that it was sufficiently established that both of them belong to schedule castes. Aggrieved by these orders, Harbans Singh has filed the present petition.

(2.) S. Ujagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that rule 11(1) of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), which is mandatory in nature, requires that a candidate should file a nomination paper completed in Form I appended to the Rules. Any incomplete nomination paper is liable to be rejected in view of the clear language of Rule 16(1)(c) of the Rules. It is proved beyond about and has even been noticed by the Deputy Commissioner that there was no verification by a Magistrate, of the declarations made by both Dharam Pall and Uttam Singh respondents. The declarations without verifications were no declarations in the eye of law. So the nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. The Deputy Commissioner has illegally allowed the revision petitions against these orders. In order to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel, it will be apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts from the statutory provisions which fall for consideration in this revision petition. They read as under :-

(3.) Rules 11 and 16 of the Rules are mandatory. Compliance with the same is necessary for the smooth and expeditious completion of elections. These rules have to be complied with by all concerned. Non-compliance of rule 11 has been made penal by rule 16 of the Rules. In any case in which there is non-compliance with the provisions of rule 11, the nomination papers are liable to be rejected. Form I has prescribed a declaration. This declaration has to be verified and the form of verification has also been prescribed. Without a verification the declaration cannot be complete. In the absence of a verification, the declaration will be non-est. It will be non-existent in the eye of law. Furthermore when a mandatory provision prescribes a thing to be done in a particular way that has to be done in the manner prescribed. From I has to be completely filled. Without verification the form remains incomplete and it is not a nomination paper as envisaged by rule 11(1) of the Rules. It is liable to be rejected. It is not necessary to dilate upon this matter any further because it stands settled by a host of authorities of this Court. The first case is Fatah Singh v. K.C. Grover, 1965 P.L.R. Short Notes 24, wherein it has been held by a Division Bench that "where the candidate did not correctly fill in prescribed form but attached a separate piece of paper along with his nomination form bearing an attestation by and more or less on the basis of that found in the nomination form there was no substantial compliance of rule 11(2) of the Rules and the nomination papers were rightly rejected." This view was reiterated in Nanak Singh and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and others,1968 PunLR 1095. In this case Bihari Lal who belonged to the scheduled caste filed a nomination paper in Form I as prescribed by the Rules. He did not fill the blanks. The declaration was not attested in the manner prescribed in the form at the appropriate place by the prescribed authority. A separate certificate issued by a Magistrate to the effect that he was a member of the scheduled castes was appended with the nomination papers. A question arose whether the certificate issued by the Magistrate and produced by the candidate could be deemed as verification of the declaration made by Bihari Lal in the nomination form. It was observed thus :-