Anu Malhotra, J.

1. Vide the present LPA No.267/2017 under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the appellant assails the order dated 08.04.2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3064/2017 whereby the appellant herein as petitioner thereof had challenged the order dated 05.04.2017 of the Returning Officer, Ward No.24-S (Bapraula) (arrayed as the respondent No.2 to the present appeal), whereby the nomination form of the petitioner to contest the MCD Election, 2017 from Ward No.24-S, Bapraula has been rejected.

2. On the date when the appeal was first taken up for hearing itself, the attention of Mr. Manoj Ohri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant was drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, 1952 SCR 218.

3. The submissions made through the present appeal and in W.P.(C) No.3064/2017 were to the effect that the candidature of the appellant herein had been rejected erroneously on the ground that the proposer of the appellant herein Ms. Shashi Prabha shown as elector in Part 57, Serial No.30 of Assembly Constituency No.31 (Vikas Puri) was not an elector for Ward No.24-S (Bapraula) wherefrom the appellant herein had filed her nomination. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was an error in enrolling the proposer Ms. Shashi Prabha as an elector of Part No.57, Serial No.30 of Assembly Constituency No.31 (Vikas Puri) and that in fact she should have been elector of Ward No.24-S, Bapraula. It was also submitted that the proposers daughter Deepika shared the same residential address.

4. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on Rule 19(5) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Election of Councillors Rules, 2012 [‘DMC (Election) Rules’ hereafter] which reads to the effect:

“19(5) On the presentation of a nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall, satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidates and his proposers as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral roll;

Provided that the Returning Officer shall permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regard to the said names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls, and where necessary, direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be overlooked.”

5. Vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2017, it was observed to the effect that in terms of Rule 19(5) of the DMC Election Rules, the Returning Officer was only required to check whether the proposer was enrolled as an elector of the Constituency wherefrom the nomination has been filed. It was further observed thereby that:-

“A denial of the aforesaid rule would show that the Returning Officer is obliged to satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer – as entered in the nomination paper, are the same as those entered in the electoral roll. In case there is any clerical or technical error in this respect, he may correct the same in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls, and where necessary, direct that any clerical/ printing error in the same shall be overlooked. The aforesaid obligation cast on the Returning Officer cannot be read as an obligation on the Returning Officer to change the constituency/ward where the proposer elector is enrolled.”

6. The appellant has submitted that she had filed her duly filled in nomination form No.2 along with the prescribed affidavit in Form No.21 & 22 required by the respondent No.1, i.e., the State Election Commission of the NCT of Delhi on 03.04.2017 before the respondent No.2, i.e., the Returning Officer of Ward No.24-S, Bapraula. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant herein that the respondent No.2 inspected the nomination form of the appellant and accepted the same after it was