Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by Bansilal and twelve others under sec. 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. XV of 1949) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in an appeal in an election matter under sec. 19(2) of Municipal Act.

2. The appellants had brought an election petition against the election of Manohar Lal respondent to the Municipal Board of Chittorgarh from Ward No. 10. We do not think it necessary to set down in detail the case put forward in the election petition, for though the District Judge framed as many as nine issues, he decided only one issue relating to the rejection of the nomination paper of Ramchandra. We, therefore, propose to mention only those facts which are relevant so far as only the rejection of Ramchan-dras nomination paper on the 15th of November 1955. This nomination paper was rejected on the 18th of November 1955 It appears that there was no objection by anyone under rulel7(l) of the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules). It also appears that it was the Returning Officer himself who rejected the no mination paper under rule 17(2) of the Rules. The case of the appellants with respect to this was in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of their election petition. They said in these paragraphs that Ramchandra, who was one of the respondents in the petition, had filed a nomination paper for election from Ward No. 10 which was rejected by Returning Officer on the 18th November 1955. They went on to say that the Returning Officer made a mistake in rejecting the nomination paper of Ramchandra as there was no legal defect in it and that the difference in the signature of Ramchandra by the addition of the word "Kabra" did not make the nomination paper invalid and liable to rejection. The reply of Manohar Lal to these paragraphs was that he admitted that Ramchandra had filed a nomination paper for elect ion from Ward No. 10. He, however, said that this nomination paper was properly rejected on the date of scrutiny as it had not been properly filled in and also because an addition was made and no addition or alteration was allowed in the nomination paper under the Rules. These allegations and counter allegations would show that there was no question raised by anybody about the identity of Ramchandra Kabra who had filed the nomination paper on the 15th of November 1955 with the person entered at No. 342 of the electoral roll.

3. Though the District Judge framed as many as nine issues in the case, no issue was framed as to whether Ramchandra Kabra, who filed the nomination paper on the 15th of November 1955,was the person entered at No. 342 of the electoral roll of Ward No. 10. This was because the point was never raised by the parties before the District Judge. The only issue, which was framed in this connection, was this—

"Did the Returing Officer make a mistake in rejecting the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 (i.e. Ramchandra) and did this materially affect the result of the election."

4. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the Returning Officer was wrong in rejecting the nomination paper of Ramchandra merely because of a difference in the signature where the word "Kabra" was added, while in the entry in the electoral roll at No. 342 of Ward No. 10 the name was only Ramchandra without the word "Kabra". He relied on the well settled law relating to such matters that a nomination paper should not be rejected on the ground of unsubstantial irregularity. He was also of opinion that if the Returning Officer had any doubt about the identity of the person filing the nomination he should have made an enquiry about it and then only he could reject the nomination paper, As the Returning Officer did not make any inquiry in this connection, the District Judge held that he could not reject the nomination paper. Finally he held that the rejection of the nomination paper resulting in depriving Ram Chandra Kabra of his right to stand for election materially affe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document