Sharma, J.—This is a petition by Shri Ganpat Singh under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner filed a nomination paper for the Pradhanship of the Village Panchayat of Deogaon, in the Tehsil of Kekri of the then Ajmer State, on the 8th of October 1956. The dates of receiving nomination papers were from 6th to 8th of October 1956 and the time given was from 10.00 A M. to 4.00 P.M. The nomination paper with which we are concerned, was filed at 2.55 P. M. The nomination was proposed by Sunder Lal and it was second by Surajmal. The following endorsement was made by the Returning Officer Shri J. N. Mathur (Respondent No. 1 in this case)—

Presented by Shri Ganapat Singh S/o Sangram Singh of village Deogaon, to-day at 2.55 p. M.

(Sd.) J.N. Mathur

8/10."

On the 10th of October 1956, which was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, this nomination paper was rejected and the following endorsement was made on the nomination paper—

"Since there is no serial number of the seconder Surajmal the form is rejected.

(Sd.) J.N. Mathur

10/10 Returning Officer"

The result of the rejection of this nomination paper was that only Shri Bhanwarlal (Respondent No. 4 in this case) was left among the candidates and he was consequently declared returned unopposed.

3. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on the 19th of October 1956, before the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer State. After the merger of Ajmer State with the Rajasthan State, the petition has come to this Court.

4. We have heard Shri M. B. L. Bhargava on behalf of the petition and Shri R. A. Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate on behalf of the first three respondents, who are all officials of the State. Shri Bhanwarlal, respondent No. 4, who was declared returned unopposed, has not put in appearance.

5. The main argument of Shri Bhargava on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that serial number of the seconder was not given, is illegal. It has been argued that under rule 27 of the Rules of the Ajmer State Panchayat (Election and Business) Rules, 1956, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, no emphasis has been laid on the giving of the serial number on the list either of the candidate or of the proposer or the seconder. It has been argued that under sub-rule (2) of rule 27, a candidate has been required to deliver either in person or by his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer on the date and place and during the hours fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, a nomination paper in the prescribed form subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder. It was argued that under sub-rule (4), the Returning Officer is required on the presentation of a nomination paper to satisfy himself that the names of the candidate and his proposer and seconder as entered in the nomination paper, are the same as those entered in the voters register. It was argued that the satisfaction of the Returning Officer should be with respect to the name of the candidate and that of his proposer and seconder and once he is so satisfied, it is not necessary for him to look to the serial number. It was further argued that proviso to sub-rule (4) authorises the Returning Officer to permit any clerical error in the nomination paper in regard to the nomination of the candidate, the proposer and the seconder to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the voters register, and if necessary to direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be overlooked. It was argued that if the same importance were attached to the serial numbers, it would have been made the duty of the Returning Officer to examine the serial numbers also on the presentation of the nomination paper and to permit corrections or condonation as provided by the proviso in the case of the names of the elector, the propose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document