Back
1979 Supreme(AP) 37
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
Thiruveedhula Abbayya - Appellant
Versus
Election Officer and Development Officer, Addepalli Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd , Addepalli, Guntnr Districts - Respondent
Decided On : 02-01-79
The requirement of expressing a choice of symbol in the nomination paper is directory and not mandatory.
Headnote:
ELECTION - NOMINATION - REJECTION - SYMBOL - CHOICE OF SYMBOL - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 22 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1964 - WHETHER NOMINATION LIABLE TO BE REJECTED FOR WANT OF CHOICE OF SYMBOL - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the Addepalli Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., filed his nomination for the election of the Managing Committee of the society. The Election Officer rejected the nomination on the ground that the petitioner had not expressed his choice of symbol in the nomination paper. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requirement of expressing a choice of symbol in the nomination paper is not mandatory and non-compliance with it does not entail the rejection of the nomination paper. The court interpreted Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, and held that the purpose of column 7 in Form f, which deals with the choice of symbol, is merely to assist the Election Officer in allotting symbols to the contesting candidates. The court also held that the Election Officer is not bound to allot the symbol chosen by the candidate and may allot a different symbol if necessary.
Issues: Whether the nomination of a candidate is liable to be rejected for the reason that no choice of symbol was expressed in the nomination paper?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: * The requirement of expressing a choice of symbol in the nomination paper is directory and not mandatory. * The purpose of column 7 in Form f, which deals with the choice of symbol, is merely to assist the Election Officer in allotting symbols to the contesting candidates. * The Election Officer is not bound to allot the symbol chosen by the candidate and may allot a different symbol if necessary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Election Officer to accept the petitioner's nomination paper and conduct the election.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a member of the aforesaid society. Respondents 3 to 9 are also the members of the said society. The society consists of members of handloom weavers.
( 3 ) THE term of the office of the Managing committee Board of Directors stood expired by the end of June, 1978.
( 4 ) THE first respondent has been appointed as the election Officer by the Assistant director of Handlooms and Textiles, Ountur, as per his proceedings dated 11th of May, 1978 to conduct elections of the Managing committee of the society. He issued a preliminary notice on 15th of May, 1978 to all the directors of the society intimating them that the elections to the Managing committee of the society would held on 19th of June, 1978, and directing them to hand over the necessary records on 18th of May, 1978.
( 5 ) THE first respondent also issued a general body notice to all the members on 24th of may, 1978 giving full details as regards the date of election fixing it on 19th of June, 1978, the date of filing nominations fixing it on 3rd June, 1978, the scrutiny of nominations fixing it on 14th June, 1978, and fixing 5th June, 1978 as the date for withdrawal of nominations.
( 6 ) ON 3rd June, 1978, the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 and three others filed their nominations. The nomination forms were made available in the society itself. There is a dispute as regards the filling up of the nomination papers with respect to the symbol so far as the petitioner is concerned.
( 7 ) THE Election Officer, the first respondent herein, took up the scrutiny of the nomination forms along with that of the petitioner on 4th June, 1978, who found that column no. 7 in the nomination paper relating to the symbol was not filled by the petitioner. On that ground, the first respondent rejected the nomination paper as he did not prefer his choice of symbol. It is under those circumstances the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is invoked, by the petitioner by filing the application under Article 226 of the constitution for the relief as mentioned supra.
( 8 ) THERE are certain other allegations made in the writ petition attributing interestedness to the Election Officer, which are duly denied by the ist respondent in the counter. It is not necessary for this Court to go into other contentions raised.
( 9 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is:- whether the nomination of a candidate is liable to be rejected for the reason that no choice of symbol was expressed in the nomination paper?
( 10 ) SRI Jagannadha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that it is not obligatory on the part of the petitioner to express a choice as regards the symbol in the nomination form, as according to the learned Counsel the column pertaining to it must be or shall have to be filled up only by the Election Officer. The expression of choice as regards symbol is not visited with the consequence of the rejection of the nomination paper.
( 11 ) IT was contended on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, that the requirements regarding the expression of choice of symbol are mandatory non-compliance with which should necessarily entail the consequence of the rejection of a nomination paper.
( 12 ) AS a controversy centres practically upon the interpretation of rule 22 of the andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies rules, 1964, referred to hereinafter merely as "the Rules", we shall read the same in so far as it is material.
( 13 ) RULE 22 d
