POORAN MAL Vs. POONAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election appeal has been filed by Pooranmal, a voter in ward No. 4 of the Merta City municipality, and it raises an important question about the duty of the Returning Officer while scrutinising the nomination form under cl. 12 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Order 1960 (hereinafter called 'the order of 1960')

(2.) IN the general elections of Merta City Municipality held in October 1970, there were three candidates from ward No. 4. Respondent No. 3 Shiv Prasad was one of the candidates from that ward and he had filed his nomination with the Returning Officer. Column No. 1 of that nomination paper wherein the electoral roll No. of the candidate was to be mentioned was blank. The Returning Officer on scrutiny rejected that nomination form of Shiv Prasad on the ground that its column No. 8 was blank and that it did not furnish any information about the electoral roll number of the proposed candidate. Election was held on 25th October, 1970 and after the poll respondent No. 1 Poonamchand was declared as a duly elected candidate. The election of respondent No. 1 was challenged by a voter Pooranmal on the ground that the nomination paper of Shiv Prasad was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and this rejection of the nomination paper of one of the proposed candidates has materially effected the result of the election. On this ground it was prayed that the election of Pooranchand be set aside.

(3.) IF this proviso is carefully perused then it leaves no room for doubt that a candidate, his proposer, or seconder or a nominee appointed for that purpose present at the time of the scrutiny, has a right to get the identity of a candidate or of his proposer or seconder established before the Returning Officer if the name of a candidate his proposer or seconder or any other particulars relating to the candidate, his proposer is erroneously supplied in the nomination form. The effect of this proviso, in my opinion, is to confer a right on a candidate, his proposer or seconder or a nominee of a candidate to get the identity of the candidate established before the Returning Officer in spite of the erroneous description of the name or other particulars of the candidate given in the nomination form. The language of the proviso does not, in any manner, cast a duty on the Returning Officer to launch an enquiry to see whether the candidate is eligible to contest the election or not. As a matter of fact the information required in col. No. 8 of the nomination form enables the Returning Officer to find out by referring to the relevant electoral roll of the municipality whether the candidate does not fulfil the qualifications of becoming a candidate as prescribed by sec. 24 of the Act, IF no information is supplied to the Returning Officer regarding the electoral roll number of the candidate and if the candidate or his proposer or seconder or any other nominated representative of the candidate is absent at the time of the scrutiny then the proviso does not cast any duty on the Returning Officer to suo moto initiate an enquiry and find out by referring the voluminous electoral roll of the entire municipality, if the candidate is a voter in any of the wards of the municipality or not. IF however any one present before the Returning Officer offers his assistance to the Returning Officer to the identity of the candidate established before him then the mandate contained in the proviso may be construed to mean that the Returning Officer shall afford opportunity to such a person to establish the identity of the candidate and if the identity of the candidate is established beyond doubt and he is eligible to contest the election then in that event the Returning Officer shall not reject the nomination paper on a technical plea that the nomination form was not correctly filled in as it did not contain an information which was necessary to establish the identity of the candidate. After the identity of the candidate is established then the defect that column No. 8 of the nomination form was blank loses the character of being a defect of substantial nature. Under sec. 24 of the Act a person has a right to contest the election to fill a seat on a Board if he is an elector in any of the wards of the municipality. This provision allows any elector in the municipality to offer himself as a candidate for any of the wards of that municipality. It is not necessary that he should be a voter in the ward from where he is seeking his election. IF the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Returning Officer should suo moto initiate an enquiry in the absence of the information required to be furnished in column No. 8 of the nomination form to find out if the candidate is a voter in the municipality or not is accepted then the Returning Officer shall be required to go through the entire electoral roll of the municipality which in big towns may consume not only a day but week of the Returning Officer to scrutinise one nomination paper Such a duty has not been cast on the Returning Officer under proviso (l) to clause 12 and in the absence of any information to be supplied in column No. 8 of the nomination form the Returning Officer is competent to reject the nomination paper as it suffers from a defect of a substantial character. Erroneous description or information may in some cases provide a clue to the Returning Officer to spot the name of the candidate in the electoral roll but the total absence of the information required to be furnished in column No. 8 stands on a different footing. The blank column No. 8 lends different colour to the nomination paper and the total absence of the information renders it a defect of substantial character.