Tare G J.-

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari against the order of the Return­ing Officer (Respondent 1), dated 4-11-1974 (Petitioner's Annexure-B) reject­ing the petitioner's nomination proper for Councillorship from Ward No. 12 of Karolin Municipality as also the appellate order, dated 7-11-1974 (Petitioner's Annexure-D) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narsimhapur, upholding the order of the Returning Officer and dismissing, the appeal on the ground that the present petitioner had not complied with rule 13 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962.

2. The petitioner and the second respondent, Jaganathsingh and one other candidate; who has not been joined as a party in the present writ peti­tion, but who has filed an Election Petition, were candidates for Councillorship of Ward No. 12, known as lal Bahadur Shastri Ward. The second respon­dent's nomination paper was found to be valid. The third candidate's nomi­nation paper was rejected in respect of which he has filed an Election Petition, which is pending. The petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on the sole ground that in Column No. 1 instead of describing Ward No. 12 as lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward, he described it as lal Bahadur Ward No. 12. Column No. 1 f the nomination form is meant for showing the Ward only for which a candi­date for election is nominated. However, in Column No. 8, which is meant for showing the candidate's electoral number in the voters' list along with the name and number of the Ward, the description was correctly given, namely, voters' list No. 454, in lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward No. 12. Similarly, in Column Nos. 10 and 13, which are meant for showing the voters' list, number of the propose and the seconded respectively with reference to the name and number of the Ward, the description given was correct, namely, proposal's voters' list No. 467, lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward No. 12 and scolder's voters' list No. 333 in lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward No. 12. Thus the only mistake committed by the petitioner was that in Column No. 1 of the form he gave the correct number of the Ward, but did give the correct description of the Ward and merely mentioned lal Bahadur Ward No. 12, instead of lal Bahadur Shashtri Ward No. 12. That was the only ground on which the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected.

3. Against the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer under rule 13 (2) of the M. P. Muni­cipalities (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls, Election and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1962. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no compliance of rule 13 (2), which is as for lows:

"R.13(2). An appeal shall lie against the order of the supervising officer declaring a nomination paper invalid:-

(i) to the Collector if the Supervising Officer is the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector; or

(ii) to the Sub-Divisional Officer if the supervising officer is the Tahsildar.

Such appeals shall not lie unless notice is given by the affected candidate or his seconder (o the supervising officer expressing an intention to file an appeal, as soon as the order reject­ing nomination is passed by him and they are lodged in the office of his appellate authority before 3 P. M. on the day next but one following the last day fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The appellate authority shall take up all such appeals in the order in which they have been filed, commencing at 12 noon on the day following the last day on which they may be presented. The appellate authority shall not be required to issue any notice but all candidates and their proposers and seconders shall be entitled to be present and every candidate shall be entitled to be heard in connection with any appeal relating to the ward for which he is a candidate. Appearance by counsel shall not be permitted."

4. Thus, there can be no doubt that a candidate, whose nomination paper has been rejected, is required to give intimation to the supervising officer of his intention to file an appeal. Of course, the wording of the rule does not indicate whether the intimation should tee oral or in writing. According to the petitioner, he had given an oral intimation to the supervising officer. We may observe that although the words "written notice" are not mentioned in the rule, the clear intention of the rule appears to be that a notice in writing must be given by such candidate. In our opinion, giving of oral notice will not be sufficient as it may be a disputed point and in such summary proceedings it is not possible to record evidence extensively regarding giving of such oral notice. Therefore, the only rational interpretation we might put on the rule is that notice to the supervising officer ought to be in writing. Clearly, the petitioner did not give such a notice to the supervising officer in writing, although we may assume it on his own allegation that he might h-we given an oral notice. As the oral notice was insufficient, we would endorse the view of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was the appellate authority, that the petitioner's appeal was incompetent.

5. The further question is whether we should interfere with the original order of the supervising Officer rejecting the petitioner's nomination paper. It is true that as laid down by a Divisional Bench of this Court in Shivkaran Hariramji of Jaora v. Supervising Officer, Jaora 1968 MPLJ 407, rule 13 (1) (i) of the 1962 Rules is mandatory. That rule says that a nomination paper shall be complet­ed "in Form IV" and not "in accordance with Form IV". It means that the Form must be strictly and literally followed. Failure to write the name of the Ward is a defect substantial in character and would not be covered by rule 13 (1) (vi), and for non-compliance with the requirements of rule 13 (1) (i), the supervising officer would be justified in rejecting the nomination paper, as such an omission would be fatal.', Therefore, a question may arise in each case whether the defect is of a substantial character. Rule 13 (1) (vi) of the Rules provides that the supervising officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. Therefore, the question arises whether the incomplete description of the Ward by the peti­tioner in his nomination paper was a defect of a substantial character.

6. It is also true that as laid down by a Full Bench of the this Court in Malam Singh v. Collector, Sehore 1971 M PL J 531, which was a case relating to a Gram Pachayat, the High Court will not ordinarily interfere with an order rejecting the nomination paper passed during the process of election, especially when another remedy by way of an Election Petition would be available to the person aggrieved. Even so, the implication of the Full Bench judgment is that in exceptional cases the High Court can certainly interfere with rejection of a nomination paper. The question is as to under what circumstances the High Court might interfere on the assumption that such circumstances might be considered to be exceptional. By way of illustration we might observe that in a case where the description of the Ward is not given, but only the number of the Ward is given, the defect might be considered to be of a substantial character, as Rule 13 (1) (i) of the Rules requires a nomination paper to be filled strictly according to the contents of the Form. For instance, if the description of the Ward alone is given without its number, in that event also the defect might be considered to be of a substantial nature. For instance, if a candidate gives a number in the voters' list without mentioning the number of the Ward, the defect, in our opinion, would certainly be of a substantial character. But the present case was not of that type. The petitioner had mentioned the correct description and number of the Ward in three other columns, but in Column No. 1 only, although he gave the correct number of the Ward, he did not mention the full name of the Ward, namely, lal Bahadur Shastri Ward. Instead of that he merely wrote lal Bahadur Ward. There­fore, we are of the opinion that the defect in the nomination paper was not of a substantial character and the supervising officer had no justification to reject the petitioner's nomination paper, which would be covered by Rule 13 (1) (i) (vi) of the Rules. The right of franchise or the right to stand as a candidate is a valuable right and if the same is denied on altogether wrong premises, we think that it would be a fit case where this Court in exercise of its prerogative powers should interfere with an order of rejection of a nomi­nation paper, which is, on the face of it, illegal. Of course, where a candidate allows the election process to go on, this Court ought not to interfere and a person aggrieved might be left to his alternative remedy of an Election Peti­tion, as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Malam Singh v. Collector, Sehore. Similarly, this Court ought not to interfere where an enquiry into the facts might be necessary. In the present case the appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was passed on 7-11-1974 and the present petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13-12-1974. This Court had also granted a stay on 16th December, 1974, where by it was directed that the name of the second respondent, Jagannathsingh, shall not be notified as the successful candidate until further orders from this Court. Further, on, by order dated 2-1-1975 that interim order was modified by directing that the proposed meeting for selection of Councillors or election of the President and the Vice-President shall remain stayed till the final decision of the present writ petition. In view of this fact also we would be inclined to hold that this is an exceptional case where this Court ought to exercise its prerogative powers in order to enable the petitioner to exercise his valuable civil right of contesting an election, which right was denied to him on altogether wrong premises.

7. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent urged that the third candidate, whose nomination paper was rejected, has not been imp leaded as a party, to this writ petition. We may observe that a candidate, who withdraws from the contest need not be joined as a party in an Election Petition, as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Goverdhanlal NanD-1al v. Ramcharan Dalluram 1962 M P L J 480. Applying the same reasoning we are of the opinion that a candidate, who is not alert about his own rights need not be joined as a party to the present proceedings. Moreover, that third candidate has already filed an Election Petition. Therefore, we hold that the non­ joinder of the third candidate will not be fatal to the tenability of the present writ petition.

8. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 7-11-1974 (Petitioner's Annexure-D) and the order of the supervising officer, dated 4-11-1974 (Petitioner's Annexure-B), are hereby quashed. The super­vising officer is directed to accept the petitioner's nomination paper and order proper election. The declaration of the second respondent as a successful candidate at the said election from Ward No. 12, i.e. lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, is also quashed. However, under the circumstances, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs of this Court, which shall be borne as in­curred, as the petitioner was guilty of a lapse, though not of a substantial character. The outstanding amount of the security deposit be refunded to the petitioner.

Petition allowed.