The omission of the name of the Society in the nomination papers for election to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society is not a defect of a substantial character and does not warrant the rejection of the nomination papers.

1. In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the five petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ for quashing an order dated 9.06.1977, passed in revision by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co-operation Department. By that order election to the Managing Committee of Ghungrali Sewak Co-operative Agricultural Service Society had been set aside. The petitioners had been elected without a contest, as the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 3 to 15 had been rejected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny. This defect was found common to all these respondents that the name of the Society to whose Managing Committee election was sought was missing. The order about the rejection of nomination papers was upheld in appeal by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana, through an order passed on 12.07.1976. There was a further appeal under S. 62 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which was again dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 29.10.1976. Petitioner No. 5 is Harnek Singh. It was found by the Joint Registrar that he had been convicted u/s. 304-A of the Indias Penal Code. It is provided by R. 25(d) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules that a person who has committed any offence involving dishonesty or moral turpitude during the period of 5 years prior to the date of scrutiny of nomination papers was not eligible for election as a member of the Committee. Thus in appeal, election of petitioners No. 5 was quashed by the Joint Registrar but the appeal against the other petitioners was dismissed. There was then a revision on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 15 which was accepted by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Punjab on 9.06.1977, who took this view that the defect in the nomination papers was such as could be got corrected by the Returning Officer. The nomination papers were held to have been rejected on a flimsy ground.

2. The State of Punjab and the Joint Registrar have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In the written statements filed by them and the one filed by respondents 3 to 15 it has been canvassed that no material irregularity had been committed in the nomination papers by non-mention of the Society to whose Managing Committee the election was sought. It was urged before me that election was being held in relation to one Managing Committee and the Retnrning Officer could not have been in any doubt about the Society to which the nomination papers related.

3. There is no dispute about facts in this case. There are no prescribed forms unlike these relating to the elections to the Lok Sabha. Respondents 3 to 15 had omitted to mention the name of the Society to which they were seeking election. There is a provision contained in R. 6 of the Election Rules whereby the Returning Officer can permit the removal of any clerical error the nomination papers in regard to names or numbers if the corrections are required to be made for bringing them in conformily with the corresponding entries in the list of voters. The only legal points for determinations in this writ petition is whether the Returning Officer should have given a chance to the respondents for the correction of the mistake that they had made. Incidentally it how also to be decided whether without them being any cerrection the mistake was in any manner material for the rejection of the nomination papers.

4. In the impugner order reliance was placed on Shopat Rai V/s. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab, 1973 0 PunLJ 757. This was a case under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules. It is laid down therein that is there is any mistake in filling nomination papers it is the duty of the Returning Officer to render help for the rectification of the mistake. The nomination papers had been rejected only on the ground that the member had not mentioned the zone from which he was seeking