http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RABALI SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHAYAMLAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/03/1972

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1973 AIR  276            1973 SCR  (1)  59  1973 SCC  (3) 715

ACT: Madhya  Pradesh Municipalties Act 1961-Rule 13  made  there- under-Nomination form to be filed in form IV-Candidates gave only the number of the ’ward’ but failed to give the name of the ’ward’-If fatal to their election.

HEADNOTE: According   to   Rule  13  framed   under   Madhya   Pradesh Municipalities  Act, 1961, a candidate for election  to  the Municipal Council shall deliver to the supervising officer a nomination  paper  completed  in Form IV  and  the  relevant column in Form IV required the candidate to mention the "name  and number of the Ward".  Further, sub-rule  (IV)  of Rule  13 provided that the ’supervising officers  shall  not reject  any  nomination paper on the ground  of  any  defect which  is not of substantial character High Court in a  writ petition  set  aside  the  elections of  6  persons  to  the ’Municipal  Council on the ground that they  only  mentioned the  question whether the number of the wards but not  their names.   On  non-mentioning the names of the  wards  in  teh nomination paper was a defect of a substantial character, HELD  .:  The nomination papers of the  returned  candidates were  rightly  accepted  by th‘ Returning  Officer  as  they substantially  complied with the Rule.  The  particulars  in question were required to identify the constituency in which a candidate was desirous of seeking election.  That  purpose was served when either the number and the ward, or its  name was  given unless them were, more than on a ward having  the same  name  the  identification  of  the  constituency   was complete.   The name of the ward .was merely  an  additional piece of evidence to identify the constitute Once the number of  the ward was mentioned there was no difficulty  for  the Returning  Officer  to find out in  which  constituency  tin candidates wanted to seek election. [61D] Rangila  Chowdhury v. Dultu Sen & Ors. [1962] 2  S.C.R.  401 and Rain Awadesh Singh v. Smt.  Sumitra Devi & Ors., A.I.R.. 1972 S.C. 580, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 889 of 1971. Appeal  from the order dated December 9, 1970 of the  Madhya Pradesh  High  Court in Miscellaneous Petition  No.  267  of 1969. L.   S.  Baghel, Pramod Swarup and S. S. Khanduja,  for  the appellants. R.   Paniwani and S. K. Gambhir, for respondent No. 1. R.   P. Kapur, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Judgment of U Court was delivered IV Hegde,  J.-This is an appeal by certificate.  It relates  to the  .elections to Municipal Council, Sidhi.  The  elections were held 60 in  1969.  In that election six persons ie. four  appellants and  respondents  5  and  6 in  this  appeal  were  elected. Thereafter  the  first  respondent  herein  an  elector  and apparently  a busy body filed a petition under Article  226, of  ’the  Constitution in the High Court of  Madhya  Pradesh challenging the validity of the election of all the returned candidates on several grounds.  The High Court accepted that petition  and  set aside the election of  all  the  returned candidates.   The only ground on which the election  of  the returned  candidates  was  set aside is  that  the  returned candidates  in their nomination papers had merely  mentioned the  number of the wards for which they were candidates  but had  failed to mention the names of those wards.  It is  not the case of the election petitioner nor is it the-finding of the High Court that there was any difficulty in  identifying the ward in which the concerned returned candidate wanted to seek election.  The Returning Officer did not find any  such difficulty.    He   accepted   their   nomination    papers. Admittedly  every ward had a specific number in addition  to having a name. The High Court was of the opinion that the successful candi- dates  failure  to, mention the name of the wards  in  their nomination  papers  was fatal and  therefore  the  Returning Officer  was not competent to accept their  nomination.   It thought  that  it was mandatory for all the,  candidates  to mention in their nomination papers the names of the wards in which they wanted to seek election.  Further it opined  that a  mere  mentioning of the number of the ward  may  lead  to clerical errors and therefore the rule making authority  had prescribed  that  the  name  of  the  ward  also  should  be mentioned in the nomination paper.  It is nobody’s case that in  the nomination papers with which we are concerned  there are any errors as regard the ward numbers. Let  us now examine whether the High Court was justified  in taking such a technical view of the matter.  The election to the municipal councils is regulated by Rule 13 of the  Rules framed  under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities  Act,  1961. Rule 13 (1) reads "13(1)(i). On or before the date fixed for filing nomination paper  of candidates each candidate shall, either in  person or  by  his proposer or seconder, between the  hours  of  11 O’clock  in  the forenoon and 3 O’clock  in  the  afternoon, deliver  to  the  supervising  officer  a  nomination  paper completed in For IV. and subscribed by the candidate himself as  assenting  to the nomination and by two  duly  qualified voters of the ward as proposer and seconder. 61 The  relevant column in Forma IV reads "Name and  number  of the ward".  Going back to Rule 13 it is necessary to  notice sub-rule (vi) of that rule which says.:               "The supervising officer shall not reject  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             nomination  paper on the ground of any  defect               which is not a substantial character." The  question for decision is whether the non-mentioning  of the names of the wards in the nomination papers is a  defect of  a substantial character ? For deciding that question  we must first find out the reason behind the rule requiring the candidates to mention the names and the number of the  wards in  which  they  want to contest.  It is  obvious  that  the particulars  in  question  are  required  to  identify   the constituency  in  which a candidate is desirous  of  seeking election.  That purpose will be served if either the  number of the ward or its name is given unless there are more  than one wards having the same name.  Once the number of the ward is  mentioned in the nomination paper the identification  of the  constituency  is  complete.  The name of  the  ward  is merely  an  additional  piece of evidence  to  identify  the constituency.  if the number of the ward is mentioned  there will be no difficulty for the Returning Officer to find  out in which constituency the candidate wants to seek  election. We have no hesitation in holding that the nomination  papers of  the  returned candidates were rightly  accepted  by  the Returning Officer as they substantially complied with rules. If  a  nomination is accepted by the Returning  Officer  the presumption  is that the nomination is a  valid  nomination. It is for the party who challenges its validity to establish his plea by showing that there was no substantial compliance with law. Form III in the Rules prescribes the form of notice  calling for election of councillors.  That form reads : "Election   of   Councillor(s)  for   Ward(s)   No.....   of the ......Municipality, Tehsil- District-....... This form shows that even when the authorities call upon the electors  to elect councillors they do so with reference  to ward  numbers  and not with reference to the  names  of  the wards  evidently because in the case of names of  the  wards more than one ward may have the same or similar names but in the  case of number no such difficulty can arise.  If  there is a possibility of an error creeping into numbers there  is similar  possibility in the case of names.   The  candidates have to guard against such errors. The question whether the failure to mention the name of  the constituency, in which the candidate wants to seek  election in his nomination paper per se vitiates his nomination  came up for consi- 62 deration before this Court in Rangilal Chowdhury v. Dahu San &  ors.  (1).  That case related to a bye-election  for  the Dhanbad  assembly constituency in the Bihar State.   In  his nomination   paper   the   candidate   had   mentioned   the constituency  in which he was seeking election  as  ’Bihar’. That. nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the candidate had not mentioned the  name of  the constituency in which he desires to  seek  election. This Court differing from the opinion taken by the Returning Officer  held  that the nomination paper was valid  in  law. The ground on which this Court came to. that conclusion  was that  the  election  in  question  was  a  bye-election;  it pertained  to  only one constituency  ie.   Dhanbad.   That, being  so there was no difficulty for the Returning  Officer to  identify the constituency in which the candidate  wanted to  seek  election.  The ratio of that decision is  that  so long as  there  is  no  difficulty  in  identifying   the constituency  in which the candidate wants to seek  election any  omission  in  filling  the,  column  relating  to  tile

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

constituency   will  be  considered  as  unsubstantial.    A somewhat similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Awadesh Singh v. Smt.  Sumitra Devi & Ors.(2) Mr.  Panjwani  appearing for respondent No.  1  invited  our attention  to certain- decisions where the courts had  taken the  view that the particulars mentioned in  the  nomination papers  before  them did not sufficiently  comply  with  the rules.. That was because, that from the particulars given in the  nomination  papers it was not  possible  to  definitely identify the constituency in which the concerned  candidates desired  to contest.  ’nose decisions were rendered  on  the peculiar  facts of those cases.  The real test as  mentioned earlier   is  whether  from  the  particulars  given  in   a nomination  paper the constituency from which the  candidate wants  to seek election can be reasonably identified.   Once it  is held that test is satisfied then the  requirement  of the  rule is met.  Any failure to give  further  particulars canno t be considered as substantial. In  the result this appeal is allowed and- the order of  the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. The  first respondent will pay the costs of  the  appellants herein  both in this court as well as the High  Court.   The other respondents will bear their own costs S.C.                            Appeal allowed. (1)  [1962] 2 S.C.R. 401. (2)  A.T.R. 1972 S.C, 580. 63