Back
1971 Supreme(Ori) 27
Orissa High Court
G.K.MISRA,A.MISRA
Surendra Kr. Rout - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
O. J. C. No. 580 of 1970
Decided On : 02/25/1971
S. Misra (2), for Petitioner; Advocate General, for Opposite Parties.
The Election Officer has no jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers of a candidate who possesses the requisite qualifications under Section 11 and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, even if there is an error in the particulars furnished in the nomination application in Form No. 4.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION - REJECTION - JURISDICTION OF ELECTION OFFICER - ERROR IN PARTICULARS FURNISHED IN NOMINATION APPLICATION - EFFECT - ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1964 (ORISSA ACT 5 OF 1965), SECS. 11, 25 - ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYATS ELECTION RULES, 1965, RULE 29 - FORM NO. 4.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed two nomination papers for election to the office of Sarpanch of Aruha Gram Panchayat. The Election Officer rejected the nomination papers without assigning any reason. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination papers by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Election Officer had no jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers of the petitioner as he possessed the requisite qualifications under Section 11 and did not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. The court further held that the error in the particulars furnished in the nomination application in Form No. 4 did not warrant the rejection of the nomination papers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Officer had the jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers of the petitioner when he possessed the requisite qualifications under Section 11 and did not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Act, even if there was an error in the particulars furnished against any of the entries in the nomination application given in Form No. 4? 2. Whether the information furnished in the nomination application in Form No. 4 suffered from any error or mistake?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 29 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Election Rules, 1965, which provides that the Election Officer shall approve the candidature of a candidate if he finds that the candidate is duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 25 of the Act. The court held that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for rejection of a nomination if an error is committed in respect of any particular required to be mentioned in the nomination application in Form No. 4.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of rejection of nomination of the petitioner as well as the election held after eliminating him from contest, and directed issue of a writ of mandamus to the Election Officer to hold a fresh election for the Office of Sarpanch accepting the nomination of the petitioner as valid.
Judgement
A. MISRA, J. :- The petitioner filed two nomination papers for election to the office of Sarpanch of Aruha Gram Panchayat in response to the notice issued by the Election Officer (Opposite Party No. 2). Though no objection had been filed to these nominations, Opposite Party No. 2 rejected the same without assigning any reason. The petitioner alleges that he possesses all the requisite qualifications for election to the said office and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications provided u/s. 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. After rejection of petitioner's nomination. Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 contested the election and the result is yet to be published. On these allegations, he prays for a writ quashing the order rejecting his nomination by Opposite Party No. 2 and directing holding of a fresh election.
2. This writ application was filed on 11-6-70 and on that date, the Court passed an order of interim stay of publication of the result. No counter was filed and the facts averred in the petition are not denied.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed two nomination papers as at Annexures 1 and 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order of rejection without giving any reason for the said rejection. There is also no dispute that except in respect of the entry in Column 5 of the nomination paper given in Form No. 4 there is no other defect in the remaining entries contained therein. So also, it is not disputed that the petitioner is qualified for election u/s. 11 and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Orissa Gram
Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
4. The two points urged at the time of hearing are as follows; (1) whether it was within the jurisdiction of Opposite Party No. 2 to reject the nomination paper when petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications u/s 11 and does not suffer from any disqualification u/s 25 of the Act, even if there is any error in the particulars furnished against airy of the entries in the nomination application given in Form No. 4 and (2) whether the information furnished in the nomination application in Form No. 4 suffers from any error or mistake.
5. Point No. 1:- Rule 29 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) runs as follows :-
"29. The Election Officer shall at the appointed time, date and place receive nomination papers separately for the office of members and Sarpanch in Form No. 4 and scrutinise them in the presence of the candidates, their proposers and seconders, if any, who may be present. If he finds that the candidates are duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 25 of the Act, he shall approve their Candidature.
Objections, if any, filed in the course of scrutiny shall be enquired into summarily by the Election Officer and his decision accepting or rejecting the nomination papers shall be endorsed on the body of the nomination papers with reasons for the decision."
In the present case, it has been pointed out that in the entry against Item No. 5 of the nomination application given in Form No. 4 prescribed under Rule 29 of the Rules, the serial No. is given as 22 while the column requires the electoral Roll No. of a candidate. Assuming that No. 22 is not the electoral roll number of the candidate, but it is the serial No. in the register maintained for the ward u/s. 9 of the Act at the worst, it amounts to an error in giving the electoral roll No. Under Rule 29 of the Rules reproduced above, if the Election Officer finds a candidate duly qualified in accorddance with Section 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 25 of the Act, he shall approve his candidature. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules there is any provision for rejection of a nomination if an error is committed in respect of any particular required to be mentioned in the nom
