Modi, J.—This is a petition by Tekchand under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of Certiorari in connection with the rejection of his nomination paper.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Karanpur which is a municipality under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, (No. XXIII) of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act). The case of the petitioner is that he stood as a candidate for the municipal elections of the Karanpur municipality, which were scheduled to be held on the 5th Dec, 1955, and filed his nomination paper from Ward No. 3 for that purpose Opposite parties Nos 1 to 3 also filed their nomination papers from the same ward. On the day fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, opposite party No. 1, Banwarilal, objected to the nomination paper of the petitioner on certain grounds which are not material for the purposes of the present application. The Returning Officer who is opposite party No. 4 accepted this objection and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has comes forward with this petitioner and he prays that his nomination paper was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer, and, therefore, we should quash that order. The petitioner further stated in his application that he is entitled to the writ of certiorari because sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Act bars a civil suit and the remedy by way of an election petition is only a post election remedy and it would be no consolation to a person whose nomination paper is wrongly rejected to be told that he must let the election go and then have it set aside by an election petition.

3. The application has been opposed by the Returning Officer (opposite party No. 4) and Banwarilal (opposite party No. l)although no written reply has been filed on behalf of the latter. The stand taken by the Returning Officer in his reply is that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rightly rejected (with which aspect of the matter we do not propose to deal as already stated above); and, secondly, that the petitioner has a remedy by way of an election petition, and consequently he is not entitled to any relief by way of a writ of certiorari in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The first question for determination before us is whether the petitioner has a remedy by way of an election petition or not against the alleged improper rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer, and the second question is whether there a remedy by why of an election petition is available to the petitioner, this Court should interpose at this stage and consider his application on the merits.

5. We take up the first question first. The determination of this question depends, upon the interpretation of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Act The material portion of sec. 10 is in these terms—

(1) At any time within 10 days after the date of the declaration of the result of an election, any candidate who stood for election, or any ten persons qualified to vote at that election may apply.............. to the Judge having jurisdiction over the district within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of the vailidity of the election;

(2) The Judge may, after such enquiry as he deems necessary and subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3), pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting the election aside..........

(3) (a) The Judge, if satisfied that a candidate has, within the meaning of sub-sec. (4) committed any corrupt practice for the purpose of that election, shall declare the candidate disqualified.........and shall set aside the election of such candidate if he has been elected.

(b) If, in any case to which clause (a) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the Judge shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each such candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the gre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document