The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by courts in electoral matters relating to Municipal Elections and highlighted the requirements for a valid nomination paper under the Punjab State Election Act, 1994.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

CM-1970-CWP-2021

1. This application is ordered and Annexures P-7 to P-11 are taken on record.

CWP-2780-2021 (O&M).

2. The petitioner submitted his nomination to contest the election to the post of Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, SAS Nagar, Mohali, from Ward No. 12. His nomination was rejected by order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Returning Officer, on the ground that it had not been signed by the proposer and was therefore incomplete.

3. The present writ petition was filed on 05.02.2021 assailing the aforestated order and seeking a direction to the Election Authorities to consider the petitioner's nomination after allowing him to rectify the defect therein. The case was taken up on 05.02.2021 itself and this Court took note of the fact that the nominations had not been finalized as on that date, inasmuch as the last date for withdrawal of candidature was fixed as 05.02.2021, in terms of the Election Notification dated 30.01.2021. It was in that situation that this Court passed an interim order.

4. This order was to the effect that the Election Authorities should receive and act upon the nomination filed by the petitioner, subject to the proposer affixing his signature therein before 05.00 p.m. on that date. This Court however made it clear that receipt of the petitioner's nomination would be subject to further orders in this writ petition. It appears that the Returning Officer allowed the petitioner's proposer to affix his signature in the nomination form but issued the list of validly nominated candidates with a note appended thereto to the effect that the petitioner would be included in the list subject to the decision of this Court in the present writ petition.

5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner submitted his nomination, comprising 39 pages, wherein Form No. 20 under Rule 36 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 (for short' the Rules of 1994'), was submitted without the signature of the proposer, Darshan Singh. Significantly, the name of the proposer was mentioned therein but the signature of the proposer was not affixed at the appropriate place. Only the petitioner, being the candidate, affixed his signature in the form.

6. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that this defect was not of a substantial character and ought to have been allowed to be rectified as the proposer was present at the time of scrutiny of the nomination. He would state that the proposer submitted self-attested copies of his Aadhar Card and Election Card and the Returning Officer himself permitted the proposer to affix the word 'Proposer' therein. Learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the lapse on the part of the proposer was not serious enough to warrant rejection of the petitioner's nomination and his exclusion from the election altogether. Learned senior counsel would place reliance on case law to support his contention.

7. Per contra, Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, would point out that Section 38 (1) of the Punjab State Election Act, 1994 (for short ' the Act of 1994'), required each candidate, either in person or by his proposer, to deliver to the Returning Officer the nomination paper, completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer, and contend that the lapse on the part of the proposer in the petitioner's case is fatal to the very validity of his nomination paper. He would further point out that Section 41 (4) of the Act of 1994 required the Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper in the event a defect therein was found to be of a substantial character. He would also place reliance on case law.

8. It may be noted that Article 243-ZG of the Constitution postulates a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters relating to Municipal Elections. Scope of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the