HANUMAN DASS Vs. G.S. FIJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Hanuman Dass who was nominated as candidate for election to the Market Committee. Abohar, from amongst producer -members thereof. The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, framed the election programme according to which the filling of nomination papers was to take place in the office of the Returning Officer on the 23rd of October, 1968, between 11 A.M. and 3 P.M., the scrutiny was fixed for 25th of October, 1968, withdrawal of nomination papers on 28th of October, 1968, taking of poll on 17th of November, 1868, and the counting of votes and declaration of results on the 18th of November, 1968. The petitioner subscribed his acceptance to the nomination paper, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 'B' to the writ petition, his proposer being one Khiali Ram. The nomination paper was complete in all respects, i.e., it bore the signature of Khiali Ram as proposer, it bore the signature of Hanuman Dass as candidate who had agreed to the nomination and it bore the signature of Diewan Chand Sarpanch certifying that Hanuman Dass was a producer and resident of the notified market are Abohar. This nomination paper was presented before the Returning Officer at 1.40 P.M. on the 23rd of October, 1968, by Khiali Ram proposer and not by Hanuman Dass. On the day of scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected this nomination paper on the ground that it had not been presented in person by Hanuman Dass. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Returning Officer in this petition.

(2.) RETURN has been filed on behalf of the respondents supporting the order of rejection passed by the Returning Officer. Reliance has been placed on rule 7 (4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Election to Market Committees) Rules, 1961, and the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, by memo No. 8293 -97/LFA dated 18th of October, 1968. These instructions have no statutory force and will not avail if the interpretation of the relevant rule does not bear that interpretation.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, this petition is allowed and the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Since the interpretation of the rule was involved, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.