The rejection of a nomination based on incomplete information must be justified by demonstrating that the information is of substantial character, and a nomination paper once accepted cannot be rejected on a subsequent date without specific provisions for review.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has handed over rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by Returning/Election Officer, Block Betalghat, District Nainital, whereby nomination of the petitioner for the post of Member Kshettra Panchayat was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that in the State of Uttarakhand, three-tier Panchayat elections were notified and pursuant to the notification of three-tier Panchayat Election, District Election Officer, Nainital vide notification dated 28.05.2014 published election programme for different Blocks including the Block in question i.e. Betalghat, District Nainital. As per the notification/election programme dated 28.05.2014, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, nomination could be presented between 02.06.2014 to 05.06.2014 and 6th, 7th and 9th June, 2014 were fixed for scrutiny of the nominations, and 10.06.2014 was fixed for withdrawal of the nomination. Petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 submitted their nominations for the post of Member, Kshettra Panchayat, Betalghat, District Nainital. Nomination of the petitioner as well as that of respondent No. 5 were accepted on 07.06.2014. Thereafter, Respondent No. 5 preferred his objections against the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner before the Election/Returning Officer/District Supply Officer on 09.06.2014 stating therein that the petitioner was having two shops, one grocery shop and another fair price shop, however, in column No. 3 of Annexure No. 1 of nomination paper only the word “shop” was written thus the petitioner was guilty of furnishing incomplete information as well as concealment of the important information, therefore, nomination of the petitioner ought to have been rejected. Along with the objections, respondent No. 5 had annexed information sought and received by respondent No. 5 to the effect that the petitioner was running one grocery shop and was running one fair price shop also. Election/Returning Officer, vide order dated 09.06.2014, Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, was pleased to recall the order dated 7.6.2014 accepting the nomination of the petitioner and was further pleased to reject the nomination of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner had furnished incomplete information and deliberately did not show that he was having two shops, one grocery shop as well as one fair price shop. In the order impugned herein reliance was placed on the instructions issued by State Election Commission dated 24.02.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

4. I have heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyaya, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.C. Pande, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and have carefully perused the record.

5. Undisputedly, there were only two candidates for the post of Member of Kshettra Panchayat Betalghat i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5. Nominations of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 were found to be in order, therefore, both the nominations were accepted on 07.06.2014. Undisputedly, thereafter on 09.06.2014, respondent No. 5 preferred an objection to the effect that the petitioner was running two shops, one fair price shop and another grocery shop, however, in Annexure No. 1 to the nomination paper filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had shown “shop” in column No. 3, therefore, the petitioner was guilty for furnishing incomplete information as well as conceal