Nomination papers are required to be filed nominating a candidate for the election of members of a Committee and if there is some clerical error in any such nomination papers in regard to the names, the same can be corrected. The nomination paper thus is required to contain the name of the candidate and the name of the person nominating.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. Chuhar Singh, President of Gunachour Cooperative Agriculture Service Society, Gunachour, (hereinafter called the Primary Society) challenges in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution order dated September 1, 1993, passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration) Co-operative Societies by which his election as Director of the Nawanshehar (Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Nawanshehar (hereinafter called the Central Society) has been set aside. On July 31, 1991 election of the Board of Directors of the Central Society were held. As per election programme nomination papers were to be filed on July 25, 1991 before the Returning Officer, Objections thereto were to be filed on July 26, 1991 from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and the same were to be disposed of by affording hearing from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was to take place from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. The nomination papers could be withdrawn up to July 27,1991 and the election was scheduled to be held on July 31,1991. The petitioners contested from Zone No. 3 of the Central Society and was declared elected unopposed. Nomination paper of Mohan Singh respondent No. 4 was rejected by the Returning Officer on an objection being raised by one Phuman Singh, his proposer. The objection was that he had not proposed the name of the aforesaid Mohan Singh and that his thumb impression on the nomination papers was forged one. An election petition was filed by Mohan Singh respondent No. 4 on the ground that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to reject his nomination paper on the ground that the thumb impression was forged one. The Returning Officer could only hear objections with regard to the eligibility of the candidate. Annexure P.I is the copy of the election petition filed. It was not the stand taken that the thumb impression of Phuman Singh on the nomination paper was not a forged one. A reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner asserting that there was no proper nomination of Mohan Singh respondent No. 4 as the thumb impression of Phuman Singh on the nomination was forged. This objection touches the eligibility of the candidate to the election and his name was rightly rejected. An affidavit was forwarded to the Returning Officer by Phuman Singh in this respect. Copy of the reply is Annexure P.2. During the proceedings two witnesses were produced. The petitioner appeared as RW 1 and Phuman Singh as RW 2. Their stand, as already stated above, in these statements was that Phuman Singhs thumb impression was forged one. The Additional Registrar (Administration) vide order dated September 1,1993 set aside the election of the petitioner, which is impugned. According to the petitioner the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to reject the nomination papers on the ground that thumb impression of the proposer on the nomination paper was forged one. Such an objection did not touch the eligibility of the candidate. Certain allegations of mala fides were alleged against Sh. Dilbagh Singh, Agriculture Minister, Punjab, that it was at his instance that the election of the petitioner was got set aside and no useful purpose would be served by filing an appeal or petition before the State Government against the impugned order was required under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act.

2. On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed by Dilbagh Singh respondent No. 5 by way of affidavit denying the allegations of mala fides. Dilbagh Singh contested election in February 1992 he was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture. Election to the Board of Directors of the Central Spciety was held in July, 1991. Respondent No. 4 had challenged the election of the petitioner as Director of the Central Society by filing an election petition in September 1991. Thus on these facts it was alleged by respondent No. 5 Dilbagh Singh that he had not exercised any pressure or influence directly or