Per Dave, J.—This is an application by one Ismail, resident of Sojat City, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and arises under the following circumstances I

2. In connection with the municipal elections for the town of Sojat, the Collector Pali, who is non-petitioner No.2, appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, non-petitioner No. 3, as a returning officer for the elections. Non-petitioner No. 3 thereupon invited nomination papers to be filed by the 25th of July, 1956. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper to non-petitioner No. 3 for his election as a member of Sojat Municipal Board from ward No. 10. The only other person who submitted his nomination paper from the same ward was non petitioner No. 4, Narain. On the 24th July, 1956, the returning officer scrutinized the nomination papers and rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner as also of non-petitioner No. 4. The petitioners nomination paper was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualification as provided in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election Rules, 1951 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules), because it was found by the returning officer that the petitioner was not capable of reading and writing Hindi, nor was he otherwise literate. To this extent, there is no dispute between the parties on facts.

3. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the returning officers order, dated 28th July, 1956, on the following grounds :

(1) that the petitioner was literate inasmuch as he could read and write Hindi, that he fulfilled the qualification of r. 13 referred above, that he was eligible for standing as a ca.n|idate for the municipal elections and the returning officer was wrong in Folding that he could not read or write Hindi.

(2) that the qualification laid down in r. 13 does not appear in the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act No. 23 of 1951 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act), that if the legislature meant to provide such a qualification for a member, it would have found its place in the Act, that the Government of Rajasthan had no power to lay down such a Rule and hence r. 13 (i) was ultra vires of the Act.

(3) Even if ground No. 2 is not allowed, r. 13 (1) should be struck down because it offends against the petitioners constitutional right of eqauhty before the law. The petitioners argument on this point is twofold :

(a) It is contended that r. 13 is vague, that it does not lay down any definite standard of literacy, that it leaves unfettered discretion with the returning officer to fix his own standard and then test a particular candidate from that standard and reject him. It is urged that the Rule should therefore be struck down on the ground of vagueness.

(b) It is next urged that r. 13 in fact provides a disqualification inasmuch as all illiterate persons are debarred from standing for the membership of the municipal board., that this Rule puts an unreasonable restriction on the right of illiterate persons to stand for election, that such a restriction does not exist even for those persons who want to stand as candidates for election to the State Legislative Assembly or to the House of People, and therefore, the Rule should be struck down on this ground as well.

4. The arguments raised by the petitioner have been contested by non-petitioners Nos. 1,2 and 3. Non-petitioner No. 4 has not cared to appear in this Court. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has added one more non-petitioner, namely, Harikishan, because after the filing of this writ application a fresh election was held for Ward No. 10 of Sojat Municipality by the returning officer on 17th December, 1956, and in that election Harikishan has been elected as a member of the said municipal board. He has also contested the petitioners application. It would be proper to deal with the petitioners contentions in seriatim.

5. To begin with the first contention it has been urged by petitioners learned counsel that the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document