Back
1959 Supreme(AP) 159
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Gogineni Satyanarayana Rao - Appellant
Versus
T.S.Rao, District Panchayat Officer, Kammam - Respondent
Decided On : 09-11-59
A nomination paper is valid if the consent of the candidate is conveyed in writing, even if it is not in a separate declaration.
Headnote:
ELECTION - NOMINATION - CONSENT OF CANDIDATE - FORM - SUFFICIENCY - NOTIFICATION REQUIRING CONSENT IN WRITING OF NOMINEE - NOMINATION FORM CONTAINING PROVISION FOR CONSENT - CANDIDATE SIGNING FORM - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - NOMINATION VALID.
Fact of the Case:
A notification was issued by the Osmania University for the election of one person to the Senate of the University from the Local Bodies Constituency. The notification required that the nomination should be made by an elector in writing and seconded by another elector in writing. The nominee was required to give his consent in writing, agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected. The petitioner objected to the nomination of the second respondent on the ground that the nomination paper did not conform to the requirements of the notification in that it was not accompanied by a separate consent in writing of the nominee agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the nomination paper was valid. The court held that the notification did not require that the consent should be in a particular mode. All that was necessary was that the consent should be conveyed by the nominee in writing. That was satisfied when the candidate had signed in the form indicating his acceptance of the nomination. It did not require a separate declaration agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected.
Issues: Whether the nomination paper was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification did not require that the consent should be in a particular mode. All that was necessary was that the consent should be conveyed by the nominee in writing. That was satisfied when the candidate had signed in the form indicating his acceptance of the nomination. It did not require a separate declaration agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition to quash the order of the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam, accepting the nomination of the second respondent for election to the Senate of the Osmania University from the Local Bodies Constituency, Khammamet District to be held in the month of August-September 1959.
( 2 ) THE Osmania University Act (IX of 1959) was enacted in February 1959) Sectionion 11 of the Act indicates the authorities of the University of which the Senate is one. The composition of the Senate is provided for in Section 17. The Senate should consist of three kinds of members such as (i) Ex-officio members, (ii) Life members and (iii) other members. Under class (iii) one person has to be elected from among themselves (other members) by the members of the Committees of Municipalities, the members of the District Boards and the Saipanchas of Gram Pancliayats in each district in the University area. It is in connection with the election of such persons that a notification was issued by the Osmania University in July 1959.
( 3 ) HAVING regard to the role which this notification plays in the context of this enquiry, it is useful to extract the relevant terms thereof in extension:"whereas one member is to be elected by the Local Bodies Constituency (consisting of the members of the Committees of Municipalities, the members of the District Boards and Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats in each district in the University area) under section 17, class III, sub-section 2 of the Osmania University Act of 1959, it is hereby notified that an election of one person to the senate of the Osmania University, from the said constituency in the district of Khammameth will be held in the month of August-September 1959. Each elector shall be at liberty to nominate a duly qualified person. Every nomination shall be made by an elector in writing and seconded by another elector in writing. Every such nomination shall be in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by the consent in writing of the nominee, agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected. Nomination papers should be enclosed in an envelope superscribed "nomination to the Senate by the Local Bodies Constituencies" and sent by registered post so as to reach the District Panchayat Officer, Khammameth who is the Returning Officer appointed by the Collector not after than 5-00 P. M. on Monday the 17/08/1959 or they may be delivered to the Returning Officer during office hours either in person or by messenger before the date and hour prescribed above. Nomination papers that are not sent by registered post or are not delivered in person or by messenger as required above, will be rejected.
( 4 ) IT is seen from the above notification that paragraph 2 provides for the mode of making a nomination, paragraph 3 for dispatch of nomination papers to the Returning Officer, while paragraph 4 enjoins upon the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers in certain contingencies namely, failure to send them by registered post or to deliver them either in person or by messenger as indicated in paragraph 3. After the issue of the notification, the Returning Officer called for nominations from the Khammameth Local Bodies constituency.
( 5 ) PURSUANT to this, two of the electors duly proposed and seconded the name of the second respondent who accepted the nomination by affixing his signature to the nomination form. An objection was raised by the petitioner to this nomination on the ground that the nomination paper did not conform to the requirements of the notification in that it was not accompanied by a separate consent in writing of the nominee agreeing to serve on the Senate, if elected.
( 6 ) THIS opposition was Overruled by the Returning Officer in the view that the consent of the candidate is included in the form itself in which the name of the candidate and his consent in writing is included. The Returning Officer also observed:"if there was any necessity for accompanying the agreeing of the ca
