JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Samela Ram and Dinanath challenging a decision of Munsif, Merta City, dismissing their election petition challenging the election of Chandanmal respondent No. 1 on the ground that the nomination paper to the office of Sarpanch of Lachhmi Narain respondent No 2 was wrongly rejected. The petition has been contested on behalf of Chandan Mal.

2. It is not disputed, in view of the admission made in the written statement filed by Chandan Mal, that the name of respondent No. 2 to this writ petition was entered at serial No. 112 of the electoral roll of Ren Panchayat as Lachhmi Narain son of Shri Kishan and that he filed a nomination paper for being elected as Sarpanch in which he entered the serial number of the voters list correctly as 112, but entered his name and signed it as Lakshmi Narain son of Shri Krishna. The nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the name of the candidate did not tally with the name entered in the electoral roll vide endorsement AB made by him on the nomination paper Ex. A. 1. Samela Ram and Dinanath petitioners are electors of this Gram Panchayat. They filed the present election petition challenging the election of Chandan Mal on the ground that the nomination paper of Lachhmi Narain was wrongly rejected. This election petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on two grounds. One ground is that the name noted on the nomination paper was different from the name entered in electoral roll.

3. Rule 18(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 runs as follows : —

"The Returning Officer shall decide all such objections and may, either on the basis of such objections or on his own motion, reject any nomination paper on any of the following grounds, namely :—

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(b) that he is not identical with the person whose number or name on the voters list is stated in the nomination paper to be the number or name of the candidate."

Mere difference in the spelling of a candidates name does not justify the Returning Officer in rejecting his nomination paper under the above rule. This rule lays down that the Returning Officer can reject it only if the person who has filed the nomination paper is not identical with the person whose name is entered in the voters list.

4. The rule referred to above is much wider than the corresponding R. 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which lays down that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. In enacting rule 18(3)(b) the Legislature has made it clear that the Returning Officer cannot reject a nomination paper unless he is satisfied that the person who has filed it is not identical with the person whose name is entered at the serial number mentioned in the nomination paper. This rule is much more certain than rule 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 inasmuch as it is not necessary to speculate what is or what is not a defect of substantial character.

5. In the present case it appears that no objection was taken by any one against the nomination paper of Lachhmi Narain son of Shri Kishan as spelt in the electoral roll and Lakshmi Narain son of Shri Krishna as entered in the nomination paper by the candidate himself. As has been pointed out by me above even in reply to the election petition Chandan Mal who was declared as duly elected did not dispute that the person who had filed the nomination paper was identical with the person whose name was entered at serial No. 112 in the electoral roll. It was the Returning Officer who suo motu rejected the nomination paper without applying his mind to rule 18(3)(b). For he rejected it on the ground that the name entered on the nomination paper did not tally with the name entered in the electoral roll.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document