The rejection of a nomination paper on the ground of an incorrect description of the candidate's name or other particulars is not permissible if the identity of the candidate is established beyond reasonable doubt.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Election Original Petition no. 21 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Election Commissioner at Gurazala and to quash the order dated 17th July, 1965, passed by that Authority, whereby the election petition filed by Komara Gopaiah, 4th respondent in this writ petition, was allowed and the election of Vema Rama Guruvu, the petitioner in this writ petition, was held to be void under rule 59 (c) of the Election Rules, and a further direction was given that a fresh election be held to the 8th constituency of Macherla Panchayat.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows. A programme for the conduct of elections, for the Gram Panchayat of Macherla was notified in May, 1964. The village was divided into fifteen constituencies in accordance with the Election Rules. Nominations were invited for all the constituencies and the last date for filing nominations was 18th May, 1964. Nominations were filed before the Election Officer, Macherla, who is the 2nd respondent in this writ petition. Komara Gopaiah, the 4th respondent, filed his nomination to the 8th constituency for being elected as a member in the prescribed form, namely, Form No, I. Besides the 4th respondent (Komara gopaiah), the writ petitioner and four others also filed their nominations to the 8th constituency. The nominations were scrutinised on 19th May, 1964 in the presence of among others, the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent. No objections appear to have been raised by anyone as to the regularity of the nomination papers. However, the Election Officer acting suo motu found a discrepancy in the description of the father s name of Komara Gopaiah, that whereas in the nomination paper. the father s name of Komara Gopaiah was shown as Peda Kasaiah, in the electoral roll his father s name was shown as Papaiah. But it is significant to note that in the nomination paper the house in which Komara Gopaiah was residing was shown as house No. 63 of the 9th Block in Macherla and his serial number in the voters list was shown as 162. Because of this difference in the description of the father s name of the candidate, the Election Officer rejected the nomination of the 4th respondent, Komara Gopaiah. Thereafter the four other candidates who had filed their nominations withdrew from the contest leaving the writ petitioner. Vema rama Guruvu, alone in the field. Subsequently on 29th May, 1964 he was declared elected unopposed from that constituency.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to reproduce the order passed by the Election Officer rejecting the nomination of the 4th respondent. The order reads:"order. The father s name of the candidate is noted as Papaiah in the printed electoral roll. But the name of the father s name is noted as Kasaiah in the nomination paper. As the applicant is not a voter as per the voters list, this nomination is rejected. (Sd ) K. L. Benny, 19th May, 1964. Election Officer, Zone 1, macherla Panchayat Samithi. "

( 4 ) A bare reading of this order would show that the Election Officer entertained no doubt as to the identity of the candidate, but he was carried away solely by the difference in the father s name of the candidate. The father s name was shown in the electoral roll as Papaiah, whereas in the nomination paper it was shown as Kasaiah. That was the sole ground on which the nomination paper was rejected.

( 5 ) AS indicated already, at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the 4th respondent and the writ petitioner were present as also some others, and it is the 4th respondent s case that the Election Officer never apprised him of the course of action he was going to take, namely, rejecting his nomination paper on the ground of discrepancy in the father s name, and further that the Election Officer never gave him an opportunity to establish his identity. His case is that no one ever doubted his identity