Back
1985 Supreme(Ori) 79
High Court Of Orissa
D. M. PATHAK, S. C. MOHAPATRA
DWIJA BHOI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
O. J. C. 40 Of 1984
Decided On : 03/14/1985
Important Points
Subject
Election Law - NOMINATION PAPERS
Act Referred
ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT RULES : R.29(b)
Headnote
ELECTION - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPERS - AGE OF CANDIDATE NOT MENTIONED IN DECLARATION - VALIDITY - ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964 (ORISSA ACT 1 OF 1965), SS. 11, 25 - ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ELECTION RULES, 1965, R. 29.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed their nomination papers for election to the office of Ward Member in the Balipada Gram Panchayat. The Election Officer rejected their nominations on the ground that they did not mention their age in the declaration in Form No. IV.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners was completely in violation of the provisions of law and accordingly the order of rejection cannot be sustained.
Issues: Whether the Election Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners for not mentioning their age in the declaration in Form No. IV.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under R. 29 of the Rules, if the Election Officer finds a candidate duly qualified in accordance with S. 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of S. 25 of the Act, he shall approve his candidature. The court further held that Cl. (b) of R. 29 of the Rules provides that the Election Officer shall not reject a nomination paper merely on account of some discrepancy between the age, name, or other particulars of a candidate or his proposer or seconder as given in the nomination paper and in the Electoral Roll provided that the Election Officer is otherwise satisfied that the identity of a candidate is not in doubt and the question of eligibility is not involved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ applications, quashed the order of the Election Officer rejecting the nomination papers filed by the petitioners, and set aside the declaration electing the opposite party No. 4 in each of the writ applications to the office of Ward Member. The court directed issue of a writ of mandamus to opposite parties 1 to 3 to hold a fresh election to the office of Ward Member for Wards Nos. 8 and 9 accepting the nomination papers filed by the petitioners as valid.
ASHOK MOHANTY
PATHAK, C. J.
( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications arise out of an election under the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (Orissa Act 1 of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and the Orissa Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ).
( 2 ) THE Election Officer, opposite party No. 3, by notice dt. 19-12-1983 invited nominations for election to the office of Ward Member for Wards Nos. 8 and 9 of the Balipada Gram Panchayat in the district of Puri. Dwija Bhoi, petitioner in O. J. C. No. 40/84, filed his nomination for election to the office of Ward Member for Ward No. 9 while Purnachandra Nanda, petitioner in O. J. C. No. 41/84 filed his nomination for election in respect of Ward No. 8 in Form No. IV under Rule 29 of the Rules. The Election Officer rejected their nominations on the ground that the petitioners did not mention their age in the declaration in Form No. IV. Form No. IV is quoted below :
FORM No. 4
(See Rule 29)
Nomination paper for election of sarpanch/naib-Sarpanch and Members of the. . . . . . . Grama Panchayat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Name of the Grama Sasan. . . . . . Ward No. . . . . . .
Election to the. . . . . . . . . . . . Grama Panchayat. . . . .
Police Station. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
" (To be filled by the proposer) I hereby nominate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as a candidate for election as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from the Ward No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grama Sanan.
1. Full name of proposer in electoral-Roll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serial No.
2. Full Name of seconder in Electoral roll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Serial No.
3. Name of candidate's father/husband
4. Full postal address of candidate
5. Electoral roll number of candidate
Date. . . . . . . . .
Signature of seconder
or
Signature of proposer
thumb impression
or
thumb impression
(to be filled by the candidate)
I, the above nominated candidate, assent to this nomination and hereby declare that I have completed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . years of age.
Date. . . . . . .
Signature of candidate
or
thumb impression "
( 3 ) BY these writ applications the petitioners challenge the action of the Election Officer, opposite party No. 3, in rejecting their nomination papers on the grounds that the order of rejection is arbitrary and illegal.
( 4 ) THE Election Officer has filed a counter affidavit stating that the identity of the petitioners was not in dispute, but their nomination papers were rejected as they failed to furnish their age in the declaration in Form No. IV
( 5 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that supplying the age of the candidate in the declaration in Form No. IV is not mandatory provided the other required particulars are given in the nomination paper. According to the learned counsel, the nomination papers of the petitioners could not be rejected because there was no omission in Form No. IV of the other required particulars.
( 6 ) MR. Ray, the learned Government Advocate submits that here is a case where the petitioners have filed their nomination papers without filling up the relevant columns in Form No. IV. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that under R. 29 of the Rules, if the Election Officer finds that a candidate is duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of S. 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of S. 25 of the Act, he shall approve his candidature. According to him, what is required to be looked into by the Election Officer is that there is compliance with the provisions of Ss. 11 and 25 of the Act and the candidate is not disqualified u/s. 25 of the Act. The learn
