GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel Mr. Choudhary for the petitioner and Mr. R. L. Jangid AAG who was appearing on the advance copy of the petition served upon him by learned counsel Mr. Choudhary.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 14. 1. 2000 (Annex. P/3) passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner and the consequential order Annex. P/4 accepting the name of the sole candidate Kan Singh.

(3.) HOWEVER, learned Mr. Jangid for the State Government places on record a photostat copy of the birth certificate of male child born to the place of the petitioner on 13. 6. 97 which is after the cut off date of 27. 11. 95. He submitted that in the present case, the provisions of Section 40 (4) of the Act will have no application. It applies to a member of Panchayati Raj Institution who is or has become disqualified but it can never apply while considering the nomination form by the Returning Officer. He submitted that there is a totally different procedure for scrutiny of nomination papers as provided under Rule 27 of the Rules and under Rule 27 (3) (a) of the Rules, the Returning Officer has to decide either on his own or on the basis of any objections against the candidature of the candidate and reject any nomination paper on the grounds mentioned in Rule 27 (3) (a) to (d ). He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer at Annex. P/3 is more than clear and a bare reading of it shows that the nomination form of the petitioner was found incomplete and deliberately the petitioner avoided to give information about the birth of the child after 28. 11. 95. He submitted that when the Returning Officer after considering the nomination form of the petitioner rejected the same on the ground that it was incomplete and material information was deliberately kept back, then this Court should not interfere with such order in its writ jurisdiction.