Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For applicant-S.L.Oarg.
  • For opponents Nos.1 to 3-Balwantsingh
  • Oovt.Advocate.
  • For opponent No.4-K.A.Chitale.
Judges
  • P.V.Dixit;Cj
  • S.B.Sen
Acts
  • clause (i) of rule 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, (hereinafter called the Rules).
  • Rule 13 of the M. P. Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962,
  • section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act),
  • section 30 (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
  • Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963,
  • Rule 4 of the aforesaid Wards Rules of 1963,
  • sub-clause (b) of clause (1) (iv) of rule 13,
  • provisions of clause (i) of rule 13 (1),
  • rule 4 of the Wards Rules of 1963,
  • provisions of rule 13 (1)
  • clause (v) (o) of rule 13 (1)
  • clause (vi) of rule 13 (1)
  • rule 13 (1) (iv) (b)
  • rule 13 (1) (vi)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For applicant-S.L.Oarg.
  • For opponents Nos.1 to 3-Balwantsingh
  • Oovt.Advocate.
  • For opponent No.4-K.A.Chitale.
Judges
  • P.V.Dixit;Cj
  • S.B.Sen
Acts
  • clause (i) of rule 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, (hereinafter called the Rules).
  • Rule 13 of the M. P. Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962,
  • section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act),
  • section 30 (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
  • Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963,
  • Rule 4 of the aforesaid Wards Rules of 1963,
  • sub-clause (b) of clause (1) (iv) of rule 13,
  • provisions of clause (i) of rule 13 (1),
  • rule 4 of the Wards Rules of 1963,
  • provisions of rule 13 (1)
  • clause (v) (o) of rule 13 (1)
  • clause (vi) of rule 13 (1)
  • rule 13 (1) (iv) (b)
  • rule 13 (1) (vi)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These consolidated orders govern Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 41–53 of 1964 (14 applications) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Each petitioner sought writs of certiorari to quash orders of the Supervising Officer of Jaora rejecting their nomination papers for election to the Jaora Municipality and to quash the upholding of those orders by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Jaora. The petitioners also asked that the Supervising Officer be directed to accept their nomination papers and declare them elected unopposed from the respective wards.

The common factual matrix was that every petitioner, when filing Form IV (the prescribed nomination form under rule 13(1)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Rules, 1962), stated only the serial number of the ward (as per the Schedule in a government notification dividing Jaora into twenty wards) but did not state the name of the ward. The Supervising Officer rejected each nomination on the ground that the name of the ward was not given, i.e., non‑compliance with clause (i) of rule 13(1). The Sub‑Divisional Officer affirmed in appeal. Because nomination papers of all candidates for the affected wards were rejected (albeit some on other grounds), no election could be held and no notification under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, could be made; accordingly, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227.

Relevant statutory and regulatory provisions referred to in the opinion include: section 29 of the Act (division of municipality into wards), the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963 (particularly rule 4 stating that each ward shall be known by a serial number and also be given a name), rule 13 of the M.P. Municipalities Rules, 1962 (Form IV requirement, scrutiny procedure, and clause (vi) limiting rejection for unsubstantial defects), Form IV and Form V references, and section 45 of the Act (notification of election).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the omission to state the name of the ward in the prescribed nomination form (Form IV), with the candidate instead stating only the serial number of the ward, amounted to non‑compliance with rule 13(1)(i) and therefore permitted rejection of the nomination paper.
  2. Whether such omission could be treated as a mere defect of a non‑substantial character attracting clause (vi) of rule 13(1), which directs that the Supervising Officer shall not reject nomination papers for defects that are not substantial.
  3. Whether the use of the serial number (rather than the ward's name) sufficed to establish the identity of the ward for the purposes of public notice (Form V), scrutiny and objections, or whether the rules required literal compliance by naming the ward.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant / Petitioners' Arguments (as presented)

  • The petitioners (through learned counsel Shri Garg) contended there was no non‑compliance with rule 13(1)(i) because the nomination papers stated the ward by reference to its serial number and thus the identity of the ward was established.
  • Any omission to give the ward's name was at most an unsubstantial defect; clause (vi) of rule 13(1) therefore barred rejection of the nomination papers.
  • Reliance was placed on authorities such as Rangilal v. Dahu Sao (AIR 1962 SC 1248), Rosamma v. Balkrishnan (AIR 1958 Kerala 154) and Deo Kanto Barooah v. Kusha Ram Nath (AIR 1959 Assam 68) as examples where defects in the nomination form were held not to be substantial.

Respondents' Arguments (as presented)

  • The learned Government Advocate and Shri Chitale argued that rule 13(1)(i) is mandatory in requiring the nomination paper to be completed in Form IV and that the name of the ward must be stated in the nomination paper as required by the Form.
  • The description by name is necessary to establish the ward's identity for notice (Form V) and to prevent any misleading of voters or candidates; accordingly the omission to state the name is a total failure to comply, not a mere inadvertent or clerical defect that clause (vi) could cure.
  • Therefore, the Supervising Officer was entitled and obliged to reject the nomination papers for non‑compliance with the mandatory Form IV requirement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Rangilal v. Dahu Sao, AIR 1962 SC 1248 The observation that if a nomination paper does not disclose at all the name of the constituency, the defect is of a substantial character; but if the nomination form shows the constituency (even if imperfectly filled) the defect may not be substantial. The Court relied on the quoted observation to distinguish the present cases: unlike Rangilal, the nomination papers here did not state the name of the ward at all (only the number), so the defect was treated as substantial and fatal.
Rosamma v. Balkrishnan, AIR 1958 Kerala 154 Dealt with a mistake in giving the number of the electoral roll of the proposer and held that such a mistake did not mislead as to the identity of the proposer. The Court observed that Rosamma concerned a different kind of defect (roll number of proposer) which did not affect identity; it does not cover the present issue of omission of an explicitly required ward name.
Deo Kanta Barooah v. Kusha Ram Nath, AIR 1959 Assam 68 Considered whether further description ("Assembly Constituency") was necessary when the constituency was described in the same terms as in the notification under section 30(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court treated this authority as addressing a different point of form and not as supporting the proposition that omission of a prescribed ward name (when wards had been given specific names) could be treated as unsubstantial.
Pralnp Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta, AIR 1956 SC 140 Example of cases addressing whether defects or omissions in nomination papers are fatal (go to the root) or directory and can be overlooked when there is substantial compliance. Referred to for the general principle that one must decide whether the requirement is mandatory or directory; applied here to hold that the naming requirement is mandatory and its omission is fatal.
Brijendralal v. Jwalaprasad, 1960 MPLJ 1039 = 1960 NLJ 615 = AIR 1960 SC 1049 Another authority considering fatality of defects in nomination papers versus substantial compliance. Referred to as part of the body of law applying the "root of the matter" test; used to support the conclusion that omission of a prescribed ward name is fatal.
Dev Kanta v. Kusharam Nath, AIR 1961 SC 1125 Part of the jurisprudence on whether defects in nomination papers are fatal or may be ignored when substantial compliance exists. Used as an example of precedent applying the same underlying principle; did not lead to a different result because the present omission was held to be total non‑compliance with Form IV.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeds in a clear step‑by‑step application of statutory wording, the mandatory/formal nature of the prescribed form and the function of the relevant rules:

  1. Mandatory nature of rule 13(1)(i): The Court accepted that rule 13(1)(i) is mandatory in stating that the nomination paper "shall be" presented in Form IV and subscribed in the specified manner; clause (v)(c) expressly empowers the Supervising Officer to reject nominations for non‑compliance with clause (i).
  2. Distinction in wording — "in Form IV" vs "in accordance with Form IV": The Court emphasized that "in Form IV" imports a requirement of literal and strict compliance with the layout and fields of the prescribed form, unlike a looser "in accordance with" formulation which might permit substantial compliance analysis for material conformity.
  3. Role of clause (vi): Clause (vi) (which forbids rejection for defects not of a substantial character) only applies where there is defective compliance, not where there is total failure to comply with an essential requirement of the form. Thus clause (vi) cannot be used to sanitize an omission that is a complete non‑compliance with an essential field.
  4. Character of the omitted information: The Court examined rule 4 of the Wards Rules, 1963, which separately provides that each ward shall have a serial number and also be given a name. The rule thus distinguishes name from number and demonstrates that the name is an independent and required identifier.
  5. Purpose of requiring the ward name: The Court found the name is essential to prevent misleading voters/candidates and to permit proper public notice (Form V), scrutiny, and objection processes. The notice required to be affixed must contain descriptions similar to those in the nomination paper; a missing name would impair that function.
  6. Application to facts: Because the petitioners did not give the name of the ward at all (they only gave the serial number), the omission was a total failure to comply with an essential requirement of Form IV and therefore constituted a non‑compliance with rule 13(1)(i). This was not a merely technical or unsubstantial defect that clause (vi) could cure.
  7. Precedent analysis: The Court reviewed cited authorities and held that none addressed the precise point where rules gave specific names to wards and Form IV required those names to be stated; prior cases showing non‑fatality of some defects involved different factual circumstances (e.g., a by‑election or a clerical mistake where identity remained clear).
  8. Conclusion of reasoning: Given the literal/mandatory requirement to complete Form IV by stating the ward's name and the total non‑compliance, the Supervising Officer correctly rejected the nomination papers; the petitions therefore fail.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core ruling):

All the petitions are dismissed.

Direct consequences and orders made by the Court:

  • The nomination papers of all petitioners were held to have been rightly rejected by the Supervising Officer for non‑compliance with rule 13(1)(i) (failure to state the name of the ward in Form IV).
  • Each petitioner is ordered to pay the costs of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in each petition.
  • Counsel's fee for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in each petition is fixed at Rs. 100; counsel's fee for respondent No. 4 is also fixed at Rs. 100.
  • Any outstanding amount of the security deposit, after deduction of costs, shall be refunded to each petitioner.

Broader implications:

The opinion applies established principles distinguishing mandatory/formal requirements of prescribed nomination forms (to be strictly complied with) from defects that may be ignored under a "substantial compliance" analysis. The Court did not announce a novel general rule beyond its factual application that where statutory/regulatory rules prescribe specific names for electoral units and a prescribed form requires naming the unit, omission of that name is a total non‑compliance and cannot be treated as an unsubstantial defect. The decision’s immediate effect is limited to the parties (dismissal and costs) and does not purport to create an expansive new precedent beyond this ruling on literal compliance with Form IV and the primacy of ward names where rules so prescribe.

Show full summary ...

    Shivkaran Hariramji Of Jaora v. Supervising Officer, Tahsildar, Jaora And Others

    This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 all of 1964.

    2. The petitioners in these 14 applications under Articles 22(5 and 227 of the Constitution seek writs of certiorari for quashing orders of the Super­vising Officer of Jaora rejecting their nomination papers for election to the Jaora Municipality from different wards of the municipality. The orders of the Supervising Officer rejecting the nomination papers were upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaora. The petitioners pray for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing also the decisions in appeal of the Sub-Divisional Officer. They further pray that the Supervising Officer be directed to accept their nomination papers and declare them as having been duly elected from the wards concerned unopposed.

    3. The nomination papers of all the petitioners were rejected by the Supervising Officer on a common ground, namely, that each of the petitioners had failed to give in his nomination paper the name of the ward from which he was seeking election; that he only mentioned the number of the ward; and that thus there was non-compliance on the petitioners' part with clause (i) of rule 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, (hereinafter called the Rules). The Sub- Divisional Officer, Jaora agreed in appeal with the view taken by the Supervising Officer. The Supervising Officer also rejected the nomination papers filed by all other candidates, who sought election from the same wards as the petitioners, albeit on different grounds. After the rejection of the nomination papers of all the petitioners and of the respondent-candidates in each petition, a fresh programme for election of the councillors from different wards of Jaora Municipality was notified by the Collector, Ratlam. As because of the rejection of all the nomination papers no election from any ward was held and no notification of election as required by section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), could be made, the remedy under section 20 of the Act of an election petition for calling into question any election was not available to the petitioners. They have, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

    4. Before dealing with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provi­sions of Act and the Rules. Under section 29 of the Act, the State Govern­ment is required to divide the Municipality into wards and to define the limits of each such ward, subject to the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Wards) Rules, 1963, framed under the Act. Those rules lay down the mode of dividing a municipality into wards and the procedure for the same. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Wards Rules of 1963, which is very material here, is as follows-

    "4. Name of ward-Each ward shall be known by the number given to that ward serially. In addition, a name to the ward shall also be given."

    Rule 13 of the M. P. Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, election and selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962, so far as it is material here, is in the following terms-

    "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 noon and 3 O"
    clock in the afternoon, deliver to the supervising officer a nomination paper completed in From IV and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two duly qualified voters of the ward, proposer and seconder.

    *** *** ***

    (iv) (a) On presentation of a nomination paper, the supervising officer shall satisfy himself that the names and roll numbers of the candidates and his proposer and seconder as entered in the nomination paper, are the same as those entered in the roll:

    Provided that the supervising officer shall permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regard to the said names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with corresponding entries in the roll; and where necessary direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be overlooked.

    (b) The supervising officer on receiving a nomination paper under clause (i) shall enter in the paper its serial number and shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the hour at which the nomination paper has_: been delivered to him and shall, as soon as may be thereafter, cause to be affixed in some conspicuous place in the municipal office a notice of the nomination in From V containing description similar to those contained in the nomination paper, both of the candidate and of the persons who have subscribed the nomination paper as proposer and seconder.

    (v) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the candidates and one proposer and one seconder of each candidate but no other person, may attend the municipal office at 1 p. m. and the supervising officer shall give them all reasonable facilities for examining all nomination papers which may have been delivered to him. He shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may either on such objection or of his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds:-

    * * *

    (c) that there has been any failure to comply with any of the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii).

    "(vi) The supervising officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character."

    Form IV referred to in rule 13 (1) (i) contains as item No. 1 the heading "Name of the Ward for which the candidate is nominated," The heading of column 6 of Form V mentioned in rule 13 (1) (iv) (b) is "Name of the ward for which nominated and the No. of the candidate in the electoral roll.

    5. By a notification issued on 7th June 1963, in the exercise of the powers under section 29 (1) (b) of the Act, the State Government divided the Jaora Municipality into twenty wards, defining the limits of each ward as per schedule to the notification. The Schedule ennumerated the twenty wards thus-

    "1 Mahidpur Darwaja 11. Neemchauk

    2, Kadachurpura 12. Bazza Khana

    3. Minipura (Reserved for Scheduled Caste)13. Tambaku Bazar

    14. Nazar Bag

    4. Hathi Khana 15. Ikbal Ganj (Reserved for Scheduled Caste)

    6. Khatripura (Reserved for Scheduled Caste) 16. Iftikchar Ward

    7. Narsinghpura 17. Station Road

    7. Pathantoli 18. Unt Khana

    8. Pipli Bazar 19. Pool Pukhta

    9. Somwaria 20. Bada Mandir."

    10. Sutharpura

    In his nomination paper presented to the Supervising Officer, each of the petitioners, instead of giving the name of the ward for which he was nomi­nated for election, gave only the serial number of the ward as specified in the Schedule reproduced above. Shri Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged that there wag no non-compliance by any of the petitioners with the provisions of rule 13 (1) (i); that in their nomination papers the petitioners stated the wards from which they were seeking election with reference to their numbers; that the identity of the wards from which they were seeking election was thus fully established and the omission on their part to describe the wards by name was at the most a defect of an unsubstantial character; and that, therefore, the Supervising Officer erred in rejecting the nomination papers contrary to the mandatory direction contained in rule 13 (1) (vi) that he ''shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character." To support his contention that the omission to give in the nomination papers the names of the wards was not a defect of a substantial character, learned counsel referred us to Rangilal v. Dahu Sao, AIR 1962 S C 1248. Rosamma v. Balkriahna, AIR 1958 Kerala 154 and Deo Kanto Barooah v. Kusha Ram Nath, A I R 1959 Assam 68.

    6. In reply, Shri Balwant Singh, learned Government Advocate, appear­ing in each case for the election authorities and Shri Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in each petition, contended that the direction contained in rule 13 (1) (i) that the nomination paper must be completed in Form IV was mandatory; that there could be no departure from the requirement of this Form, that the "name of the ward" for which the candidate was nominated must be stated in the nomination paper; that this description of the ward was necessary for placing beyond doubt its identity as also for the purpose of exhibition under rule 13 (1) (iv) (b) of the notice in the prescribed Form V of the nomination papers received; that thus the description of the ward with reference to its name went to the root of the matter, and if a nomination paper did not give this description, then there would be a non-compliance with the provisions of rule 13 (1) (ii entitling the Supervising Officer to reject the nomination paper; that the total omission to give in the nomination paper the name of the ward could not be regarded as any defect in stating the description or name of the ward so as to bring clause (vi) of rule 13 (1) into play.

    7. In our judgment, all these petitions must be dismissed. It was not disputed before us, and indeed could not be, that rule 13 (1) (i) is mandatory when it lays down that the nomination paper shall be presented to the Super­vising Officer on or before the date fixed for filing the nomination papers and between the prescribed hours and shall be completed in Form IV and subscribed in the manner laid down in the said rule. It in also plain from clause (v) (o) of rule 13 (1) that the Supervising Officer is competent to reject any nomination paper if there has been any failure to comply with clause (i) of rule 13 (1). It is easy to see that in the case of non-compliance with the provisions of clause (i) of rule 13 (1), there may be either total non-compliance, or a defect in compliance, with the rule. It is only if there is not a total failure to comply, but a defective compliance, that a mandatory duty has been cast on the Supervising Officer not to reject any nomination paper if the defect in the compliance is not of a substantial character.

    8. Now, rule 13 (1) (i) says that a nomination paper shall be completed in Form IV. It does not use the words "in accordance with Form IV”. There is material distinction between the words "in accordance with Form IV" and "in Form IV". The nomination paper would be substantially in accordance with the prescribed form, if it does not depart from it in any material respect. But when the rule says that the nomination paper shall be complected in Form IV that means that the form must be strictly and literally followed. Thus the requirements of Form IV must be complied with. The rigour of this rule is softened only because of clause (vi) of rule 13 (I), and to this extent that if the defect in compliance with the requirements of the Form is not of a substantial character, then the Supervising Officer shall not reject the nomination paper. The question, therefore that arises for detremination is whether total non-compliance with the requirement of Form IV that the "name of the ward" for which the candidate is nominated shall be stated can in any sense be regarded as a defect in the Form, and if so, whether that defect is of an unsubstantial character. It is plain enough that the statement in the nomination form of the ward for which the nomination has been made is an essential part of the Form. The Supreme Court has observed in Rangilal v. Dahu Sao, A I R 1962 SC 1248 that if the nomination paper does not disclose at all the name of the constituency for which the nomination has been made, the defect would be of a substantial character, for there would then be no way of knowing the constituency for which the candidate is being nominated; but where the nomi­nation form shows the constituency for which the nomination is being made, then even though the form may not have been properly filled in that respect, the defect in filing the form would not be of a substantial character.

    9. In the cases before us, no petitioner gave in his nomination paper the name of the ward for which he was nominated. He only gave the number of the ward. The requirment of Form IV is that the name of the ward for which the candidate is nominated must be entered in the nomination paper. The name of the ward is not the same thing as its number. This is clear from rule 4 of the Wards Rules of 1963, which says that ' Each ward shall be known by the number given to that ward serially" and that "In addition a name to the ward shall also be given." This rule thus draws a distinction between the serial number of the ward and its name. For the purpose of a nomination paper, the identity of the ward has to be established not with reference to the serial number but with reference to its name. The reason for requiring that in the nomination form the name of the ward should be stated is plainly to prevent any voter or candidate from being misled as regards the ward from which the candidate filing the nomination paper is seeking election. A clear description and name of the ward for which a person has been nominated is also necessary for enabling the parties interested to raise objections to the nomination as may be open to them. This becomes clear from sub-clause (b) of clause (1) (iv) of rule 13, which enjoins on the Supervising Officer to get a notice in Form V of the nomination affixed in some conspicuous place in the municipal office con­taining "description similar to those contained in the nomination paper, both of the candidate and of the persons who have subscribed the nomination paper as proposer and seconder." The description of the ward for which the candi­date has been nominated with reference to the name of the ward is thus so much a characteristic of the Form as to make its omission fatal to its validity. When, therefore, the petitioners failed to give in their nomination papers the names of the wards for which they had been nominated, there was a total failure on their part to comply with an essential requirement of the nomination form. It is not that they described the names of the wards in some way but that description was in some respect defective. The utter non-compliance with the requirement of Form IV in giving the names of the wards from which the petitioners were seeking election clearly constituted a non-compliance with rule 13 (1) (i). That being so, the Supervising Officer acted rightly in reject­ing the nomination papers of the petitioners. He could not have treated the aforesaid non-compliance with the requirement of Form IV as merely a defect in complying with that requirement and accepted the nomination papers after holding that the defect was not of a substantial character.

    10. Turning to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, none of them covers the point whether when in the nomination paper the constituency or the ward for which the nomination has been made has to be disclosed by stating the name of the constituency or the ward, and when under the prescribed rules the constituency or the ward has been given a specific name, the description of the constituency or the ward in any other mode is nothing but a defect in the form of an unsubstantial character. In Rangilal v. Dahu Sao, A I R 1962 SC 1248 the defect in putting down in the nomination paper the name of the constituency as Bihar Assembly Constituency instead of Dhanbad Assembly Constituency was regarded not of a substantial character in the background that the election was a bye-election and not a general election and the mistake occurred in the printing form and it was quite clear that the nomination was for the Dhanbad Constituency. On the other hand the observation in that case that if the nomination paper does not disclose at all the name of the constituency for which the nomination has been made, the defect would be of a substantial character, only go to show that if the name of the constituency is not at all stated in the nomination paper, then the nomination paper would be invalid. The Assam case, namely, Deo Kanta Barooah v. Kusha Ram Nath, A I R 1959 Assam 68 dealt with the question whether when in the nomination paper a constituency has been described in the same terms as it was described in the notification under section 30 (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, further description of the constituency by adding the words "Assembly Constituency" was necessary. In Rosamma v. Balkrishnan, A I R 1958 Kerala 154 the question decided was as to a mistake in giving the number of electoral roll of the proposer. It was held that the mistake did not in any way mislead anyone as regards the identity of the proposer. The above cases, as well as the decisions in Pralnp Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta A I R 1956 SC 140. Brijendralal v. Jwalaprasad, 1960 MPLJ 1039=1960 NLJ 615=AIR 1960 S C 1049. Dev Kanta v. Kusharam Nath, AIR 1961 SC 1125 all proceed on the footing whether the requirement in the nomination paper, in which a defect or omission has occurred, is fatal and goes to the root of the matter and that it must be strictly complied with, or whether it is only directory and a breach of which can be overlooked if there in substantial compliance with it and no prejudice ensues. The same principle has to be applied here, and on that principle it cannot but be held that when under the Wards Rules of 1963 the wards into which a municipality is divided have been given specific names and when rule 13 (1) (i) and Form IV require that a ward for which a nomination has been made must be disclosed in the nomina­tion paper by stating the name of the ward, then a breach of these provisions cannot be overlooked as the disclosure of the ward for which a person has been nominated is vital and goes to the root of the matter.

    11. Far all these reasons, our conclusion is that the nomination papers of all the petitioners were rightly rejected by the Supervising Officer. The result is that all these petitions are dismissed. The petitioner in each case shall pay costs of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in each petition. Counsel's fee with regard to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in each petition is fixed at Rs. 100. Counsel's fee for respondent No. 4 in also assessed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner in each case.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Shivkaran Hariramji Of Jaora v. Supervising Officer, Tahsildar, Jaora And Others
    (Jan 21, 1965)