The Returning Officer has the discretion to accept or reject a nomination paper based on the grounds set out in the Rules, but this discretion is not arbitrary or unguided. The Returning Officer must consider the objections raised and may hold a summary inquiry if necessary.

AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge (D. L. Mehta J.) dt. September 9. 1983 in S. B. Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1973 of 1983 filed by the appellant whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and affirmed the judgment dt. July 27. 1983 passed by the Civil Judge Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the Election Tribunal allowing the election petition filed by Taru Ram Respondent No. 1 and Birma Ram Respondent No. 2 and setting aside the election of the appellant as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Malasar.

( 2 ) THE election of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Malasar was held in the month of December 1983 under the notification issued by the District Magistrate. Bikaner. The nomination papers were required to be submitted on Dec. 30 1981 from 8 A. M. to 11 A. M. , the scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on the same date at 11. 30 A. M. and the date of poll was fixed as Dec. 14 1981. Eight persons, including the appellant. Respondent No. 1 Taru Ram and one Pema Ram had filed their nomination papers. At the time of scrutiny the nomination paper of Pema Ram was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that name in the electoral roll did not tally with the serial number and ward number. Out of the candidates whose nomination papers were accepted, all the candidates except the appellant and respondent No. 1 withdrew their candidature. The polling was held on December 14 1981. The appellant secured 1551 valid votes and respondent No. 1 secured 1467 valid votes. The appellant was declared to have been elected by a majority of 84 votes. Thereupon respondent No. 1. the defeated candidate, and respondent No. 2, in his capacity as an elector, filed a joint election petition challenging the validity of the election of the appellant. The election was challenged on various grounds. The ground which is relevant for the purpose of present appeal is that the nomination of Pemaram had been improperly rejected. The said election petition was contested by the appellant. The Election Tribunal, by its judgment dt. July 27, 1983 allowed the said election petition filed by respondents NOS. 1 and 2 and set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination of Pema Ram had been improperly rejected. The Election Tribunal was of the view that the name of Pema Ram was entered in the electoral roll for Gram Panchayat Malasar at serial No. 58 of ward No. 5 and that in the nomination paper the said candidate had mentioned that his name was entered in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat/malasar at serial No. 58 of Ward No 1. According to the Election Tribunal the aforesaid error in the nomination, paper with regard to number of the ward of the electoral roll was only a technical error and it could not be regarded as a material defect. The Election Tribunal further held that Pema Ram was present at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers and that the Returning Officer, if he had any doubt about the identity of Pema Ram. he could have made an inquiry and satisfied himself about the same and that he did not do so and therefore, the nomination of Pema Ram must be held to have been improperly rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Election Tribunal the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court wherein he prayed that a writ of certiorari may be issued to quash the order of the Election Tribunal. The said writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his order dt. Sept. 9. 1983. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the nomination of Pema Ram had been wrongly rejected and that the Election Tribunal was right in accepting the election petition and in setting aside the election of the appellant.

( 3 ) BEFORE we deal with the contentions urged by Shri H. M. Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of