Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. -This appeal has been referred to this Bench for decision as the questions involved are of sufficient importance and affect several other pending appeals. The material facts as set out in the judgment of reference are as follows :—

2. The Collector of Barmer appointed the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Balotra as the Returning Officer for holding election of members of the Balotra Municipality, The Returning Officer fixed 24th of December 1957 as the date for the election. He also notified that nominations could be filed between the 1st and 9th of December 1957. The appellant, Shatrushal filed his nomination paper on 6th December, 1957 while the respondent Noor Mohammad filed his, on the 9th of December, which according to the date prescribed by the officer, was the last date for the receipt of nomination papers. It appears that 8th December, 1957, was a public holiday. As a result of the poll, Noor Mohammad, the respondent was declared elected. The appellant Shatrushal then filed an election petition, out of which this appeal arises, before the District Judge, Balotra. The main objections on which the election petition was founded were twofold :

(1) That the nomination paper of Noor Mohammad having been filed on 9th December 1957 was not filed "at least fifteen days before the date election" as required by rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act; and that the improper acceptance of the nomination paper had materially effected the result of the election;

(2) That the nomination paper of Noor Mohammad was not handed over to the Returning Officer personally, but was presented to one Bansidhar, a clerk in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate; as such, there was no proper presentation in the eye of law and the nomination paper should have been rejected.

3. The court below after discussing the relevant issues framed in the case found in favour of Noor Mohammed and held that sec. 10 of the General Clauses Act (1897) of the Central Legislature applied to the case and cured the defect, if any, in the presentation of the nomination paper of the respondent. In other words, the court held that the filing of the nomination paper on 9th December 1957, though not strictly in accordance with rule 15, was valid because of the fact that 8th December, 1957, was a public holiday and, under the above provision of the General Clauses Act, the nomination paper could be received on the next working day. On the other question also, the court below held following the decision of this Court in Sajjan Singh vs. Bhogilal Pandya (1) that the presentation was valid and the clerk in question was competent to receive the nomination paper on behalf of the Returning Officer, he having been duly authorised to do so. On these grounds, the court below dismissed the election petition against which order the appeal has been preferred.

4. The questions indicated above have been again canvassed before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The first question which we have to consider is whether the acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent Noor Mohammad on 9th of December 1957 was improper and illegal so as to materially affect the result of the election. The validity of elections can be challenged on grounds embodied in sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (Act No. XXIII of 1951). Sub-sec. (5) which is relevant to the present enquiry says : "If the validity of the election is brought in question only on the ground of an error by the officer or officers charged with carrying out the rules made under clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) sec. 205 or of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election." Then follows an explanation which runs thus :

"The expression error in this sub-section does not include any breach or any omission to carry out or any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder whereby the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document