RAJBALI SINGH & ORS. v. SHVAMLAL & ORS. March 29, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND G. K. MIT'l'ER, JJ.) Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 196i-Rule 13 made there- wuler-Nomination form 110 be filed in Form l0V-Candidates gave only tire number of the 'ward' but failed to give the name· of the ward'-!/' fmai. IO their elections,
According. to Rub 13. framed under Madhya Pradesh Municipalities AGt, 1961, a candidate i-Oir election to· the· Mutncipal Council shall deliver to the· super>isin3 officer a nomination. paper completed in Foi:m' IV and the rele\\ant column in. Form IV r.equired the. candidate to roontion the .;name and Dllmber of the Ward". Further, sub-rulet (IV) of Rule 13 provided that the supervising officers shalt not reject any nomination pap~r on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial charac- ter. The High Court in· a writ petition, set aside the elections of 6 per- sons to the Municipal Council on the ground that they bnly mentioned the. number of thi: wards. but not their names.
On. ~· qwistion whether non-mentioning the names of the wards in the nomination pap.el' was • defect o( a sugstantial character, HELD : The nomination papers of. the returned: candidates
were rightly accepted by the R<oturning Officer as they substantially comp}ied with the Rule. The particulars in question were requil>,d to identify the , c'onstituency in which a candidate \\'as desirous of seeking election. That purpose was served when eitll~r the number of tbe ward~ or its name was given unless there were more
than one ward having the same name. ©nee tho numben of the wao:d was mentioned in the. nomination paper, the identification of the con•tituency was complete. \The name of the ward was merely an additional piei:~ of evidence to identify the constituency, Once the number of the ward was mentioned, there W9S no difficulty: lbr the Returning Officer to find out in which constituency too candidate& wanted to seek election. [61D]
Rc.ngilal• Chowdhury v. Dahu Sen & Ors. [1962] 2 S .. C.R. 401 and Ram Awad•sh Singh v. Smt. SumiAra Devi & Ors., A.LR. 1972 S;C. 5&0, referred to. CiVtL APPELLATE- JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 889 of
1971. Appeal from the order dated December 9, 1970. of the Madhyo. Pradesh High Court in }.1iscellaneous Petitiorr ~'o. 267 of 1969. T,, S. Baghel, Pramod Swarup and S. S. Khanduja, for the
appellants. R. Panjwani and S. K. Gambhir, for respondent No. I .. R. P. Kapur, for respontlents Nos. 2 and 3'. The Judgment of the Court was delivered ~ Hegde, J.-This is an appeal· by certificate.
:U relates to the elections to Municipal Council, Sidhi. The elections were jield [1973] l S.C.R. in 1969. ·In that election six persons i.e. four appellants and respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal were elected.
Thereafter the first respondent herein an elector and apparently•a busy body filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the validity of the election of all the returned candidates on several grounds.
The High Court accepted that petition and set aside the election of all the returned candidates. The only ground on which the election of the returned candidates was set aside is that the returned candidates in their nomination papers had merely mentioned the number of the wards for which they were candidates but had failed to mention the names oi those wards. It is not the case of the election petitioner nor is !t th~ ~nding of the. High_ Court that there was any difficulty in 1dentifymg the ward m which the concerned returned candidate wanted to seek electio.n.
The Returning Officer did not find am such difficulty. He accepted their nomination papers. Admittedly· every ward had a specific number in addition to having a name. The High Court was of the opinion that the successful candi- dates failure to mention the name of the wards in their nomination papers was fatal and therefore the Returning Officer was not com- petent to accept their nomination. It thought that it was manda- tory for all the candidates to mention in their nomination papers the names of the wards in which they wanted to seek election. Further it opined that a mere mentioning of the !!lumber of the ward may lead to clerical errors and therefore the rul·~-making authority had prescribed that the nai,..e of the ward also should be mentioned in the nomination paper. It is nobody's case that in the nomination papers with which we are concerned there were any'{lrrors ,as re- gard the ward numbers.
Let us now examine whether the High Court was justified in takin1t such a technical view of the matter. The election to the municipal councils is regulated by Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Rule 13(1) reads:
"13(l)(i). On or before the date fixed for filing nomination paper of candidates each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer or seconder, between the hours of 11 O'clock in the forenoon and 3 O'clock
in the afternoon, deliver to the supervising officer a nomination paper cQmpleted in For IV and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two duly qualified voters of the ward as proposer
and seconder. c c RAJBALI SINGH v. SHAMLAL (Hegde, J.) The relevant column in Form IV reads "Name and number of the ward". Going back to Rule 13 it is necessary to notice sub-rule
(vi) of that rule which says : "The supervising officer shall not reject any nomina- tion paper on the ground of any defect which is not a substantial character." The question for. decision is whether the non-mentioning of the names of the wards in the nomination papers is a defect of a sub- stantial character ? For deciding that question we must first find out the reason behind the rule requiring the candidates to mention the names and the number cf the wards in which they want to contest. It is obvious that the particulars in question are required to identify the constituency in which a candidate is desirous of seeking election.
That purpose will be served if either the number of the w;ird or its name is given unless there are more thain one ward> having the same name. Once the number of the ward is mentioned in the nomination paper the identification of the con- stituency is complete.
The name of the ward is merely an addi- tional piece of evidence to identify the constituency. If the num- ber of the ward is mentioned there will be no difficulty for the Returnin_g Officer to find out in which constituency the candidate wants to seek election.
We have no hesitation in holding that the nomination papers of the returned candidates were rightly accepted by the Returning Officer as they substantially complied with rules. If a nomination is accepted by the Returning Officer the presump- tion is that the nomination is a valid nomination.
It is for the party who challenges its validity to establish his plea by showing that there was no substantial compliance with law. Form Ill in the Rules prescribes the form of notice calling for election of councillors. That form reads :
"Election of Councillor(s) for Ward(s) No.– of the Municipality, Tehsil—- District—–. This form shows that even when the authorities call upon the electors to elect councillors they do so with reference to ward num- bers and not with reference to the names of the wards evidently because in the c'ase of names of the wards more than one ward may have the s·ame or similar n.1mes but in the case of number no such difficulty can arise. If there is a possibility of an error creeping into numbers there is similar possibility in the case of names. The candidates have to guard against such errors.
The question whether the failure to mention the na~e ~ th.e constituency, in which the candidate wants to seek election m h~ nomination paper per se vitiates his nomination came up for cons1- SUPR'EMll COURT REPORTS
(1973] 1 S.C.R. deration before this 'Court in Ran-gildl Chmvdhury v. Dahu San ~ Ors. ('1). That case related to a byccelection for the Dhanbad assemhly constituency in the Bihar State. In his nornination,p~per the .::a..J1da.te had mentioned the constituency in which he ·was seeking eleetion as 'Bihar'.
That nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the candidate had not mentioned the name of the constituency in which he desires to seek el.ection. This Court differing from the opinion taken by the Returning Officer held that the nomination paper was valid in law. The ground on which this Court came tl> that conclusion was that the election in question was a bye-election; it pertained to only one constituency i.e. Dhanbad. That being so there was no difficulty for the Returning Officer to identify the constituency in which the candidate wanted to seek elertion.
The ratio of that decision is that so long as there is no difficulty in identifying the constituency in which the candidate wants to seek election any omission in filling the column relating to the constituency will be considered as un- substantial.
A somewhat similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Awadesh Singh v. Smt. Sumitra Devi & Ors.( 2 ) Mr. Panjwani appearing for respondent No. 1 invited our attenhon to certain decisions where the courts had taken the view that the particulars mentioned in the nomination papers be.fore them did not sufficiently comply with the rules.
That was because,· that from the particulars given in the nomination papers it was not pos- sible to definitely identify the constituency in which the concerned candidates desired to contest.
Those decisions were rendered on the peculiar facts of those cases. The real <test as mentioned earlier is whether from the particulars given in a nomination paper the canstituency from which the candidate wants to seek election can be reasonably identified.
Once it is held that test is satisfied then the requirement of the rule is met. Any failure to give furth~r parti- culars cannot be considered as substantial. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed.
The first respondent will pay the costs of the appellants herein both in this court as well as the High Court. The other respondent'S will bear their own costs s.c. (I) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 401.
(2) A.T .• R. 1972 S.C. :<80. Appeal allowed c