Rattan Singh vs The Deputy Commissioner and Another

Daya Krishan Mahajan, J.—This is a petition by one Rattan Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the rejection of his nomination paper in connection with election to the Primary Members of the Samiti of Block Rai, tehsil Sone-pat, district Rohtak. The nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the thumb-impressions of the proposer and the seconder were not clear. This is what the Petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of his petition, whereas the State in its return has stated that the nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the thumb-impressions of the proposer and the seconder were not identifiable and were also objected to as being bogus. Respondent No. 2 (the Returning Officer) directed the candidate "to produce the proposer and the seconder in person, but he failed to do so."

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that under Rule 9 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis (Primary Members) Election Rules, 1961, the only ground on which the nomination paper can be rejected concerns merely the eligibility of the candidate and for that one has to go to Section 6 of the Act. Rule 9 is in these terms--

9(1) The Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers at the time appointed in this behalf, hear objections, if any presented by the objectors in person, to the eligibility of any candidate and determine these objections after such enquiry as he may consider necessary. The decision, rejecting or accepting a nomination paper, and a brief statement of reasons thereof shall be endorsed on the nomination paper and signed by the Returning Officer:

Provided that the Returning Officer may--

(a) permit any clerical error, in the nomination paper, in regard to names or numbers, to be corrected in order to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls; and

(b) where necessary, direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be ignored.

(2) The person objecting under Sub-rule (1) must be an elector.

Section 6 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, is in these terms--

[His Lordship read Section 6 and continued:]

It may also be useful at this stage to refer to Rule 7 of the above rules which is in these terms--

7(1) Any Panch or Sarpanch whose name appears in the electoral rolls published under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 may be nominated as a candidate for election to the Panchayat Samiti of that block, provided he delivers in person to the Returning Officer a nomination paper completed in all respects on the date, time and place fixed under Rule 4.

(2) The nomination of each candidate shall be made on a separate nomination paper in Form II, and must be subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination, and by two persons as proposer and seconder whose names are included in the electoral rolls published under Rule 3(3).

(3) The nomination paper of a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall also be accompanied by a declaration in form II-A verified by Member of Parliament or the State Legislature, Magistrate, Kanungo, Patwari, Sarpanch or Lambardar, that the candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specifying the particular caste or tribe to which the candidate belongs.

It will be clear from the combined reading of Rules 7 and 9 that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not sound. Rule 9 requires the Returning Officer to examine the nomination papers at the time appointed in this behalf, and further enjoins on him to hear objections regarding the eligibility of the candidate. Therefore when Rule 9 requires him to examine nomination papers he has to examine them with reference to Rule 7. Rule 7 requires that the nomination papers should be duly completed as provided in Form II and that it should be signed by two persons as proposer and seconder whose names are included in the electoral rolls published tinder Rule 3(3). Therefore it cannot be held that the only ground on which a nomination paper can be rejected is the ground of eligibility of the candidate alone.

Moreover the allegations made by the Petitioner on questions of fact are seriously disputed by the State and they cannot be determined except on evidence and, therefore, it would be a fit case where the matter can only be properly examined either by an election petition as provided by Section 121 of the Act or by a separate suit.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further urged that Section 121 is ultra vires the Legislature and for that he relies on a Bench decision of this Court in Harke v. Giani Ram 1962 P.L.R. 213. That was a decision with regard to Section 8 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (4 of 1953). The language of Section 121 of the Act is identical with the language of Section 8 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act. The only difference in the two statutes is that under the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act the rules relating to election petitions have been framed and the grounds on the basis of which an election can be set aside have been indicated in the rules, whereas there are no such rules so far as the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act is concerned. It is not necessary in this petition to further examine this matter because I am of the view that in view of the disputed questions of fact arising in this case the proper forum would be either an election petition or a civil suit. It cannot be disputed that if no election petition lies, a suit is certainly competent.

For the reasons given above this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.