The omission of substantial particulars, including the electoral roll number and the constituency name, in the nomination papers constitutes a defect of a substantial character, warranting the rejection of the nomination papers.

K.Sahai, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated the 22nd January, 1958, passed by Mr. Ramjiwan Sinha, Sole Member of the Election Tribunal at Muzaffarpur. The petitioner, who filed the election petition, is the appellant in this Court.

2. The constituency in question in this case is the Darauli double-member constituency of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Nomination papers were filed in time on behalf of nine persons for the general as well as reserved seats including the successful candidates, Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and Shri Basawan Ram, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner Ramayan Shukla, one Shivdayal Dubey and one Lakshman Raut. The Returning Officer rejected all the four nomination papers filed on behalf of Shivdayal Dubey, and accepted the nomination papers of others including one filed by Lakshman Raut. In his election petition, the petitioner impugned the election on the grounds (1) that the Returning Officer had improperly rejected the nomination papers of Shivdayal Dubey, (2) that he had improperly accepted the nomination paper of Lakshman Raut. and (3) that respondent No. 1 was guilty of corrupt practices. The Tribunal arrived at findings against the petitioner on all these points. Hence it upheld the election and dismissed the election petition.

3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Varma has put forward the argument that the Returning Officer improperly rejected Shivdayal Dubeys nomination papers. He has not pressed the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Lakshman Raut. So far as the alleged corrupt practices are concerned, he has only pressed for our acceptance the allegations (a) that Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, respondent No. 1, and his brother Radha Mohan Singh and others carried voters on station wagon No. WGJ 1995 on the 2nd March, 1957, from village Mairitanr to the polling station at Barpalia, and (b) that workers and relations of respondent No. 1 namely, Shri Ramji Singh, Shri Singhasan Singh and Shri Bishwanath Singh, carried voters on a hired cart from village Chetaur to the polling station at village Jaijore. He has not urged any other point.

4. The law relating to elections in our country is in a state of some confusion. There are two Acts bearing the same name, viz., the Representation of the People Act, and it is a co-incidence that both bear the same number, viz., XLIII. One of them was passed in 1950, and I will refer to it as the Act of 1950. The other Act was passed in 1951, and that Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act of 1951 in the course of this judgment. Jn exercise of powers conferred by Section 28 of the Act of 1950, the Central Government framed a set of rules called the Representation of the People (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules in 1950. In supersession of these rules, the same Government has framed another set of rules, bearing the same name, in 1956. I will refer to the new rules as . the Electoral Rules of 1956 and the old rules as the Electoral Rules of 1950. In exercise of powers conferred by Sec.169 of the Act of 1951, the Central Government made one set of rules called the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules in 1951, and, in supersession of these rules, it has framed another set of rules, bearing the same name, in 1956.

I propose to refer to the new rules as the Election Petitions Rules of 1956 and to the old rules as the Election Petitions Rules of 1951. In the interest of making this branch of the law better known and understood by the people, the authorities concerned will do well to take early steps to consolidate and simplify it.

5. The first question which I have to consider in this case is whether the Tribunals finding that the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination papers of Shivdayal Dubey is correct. As I have said, four nomination papers were filed on behalf of Dubey. Two of them, bearing serial Nos. A/157 (exh