Orissa High Court
Surendra Kr. Rout vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 25 February, 1971
Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 ORISSA 257
JUDGMENT A. Misra, J.
1. The petitioner filed two nomination papers for election to the office of Sarpanch of Aruha Gram Panchayat in response to the notice issued by the Election Officer (Opposite Party No. 2). Though no objection had been filed to these nominations. Opposite Party No. 2 rejected the same without assigning any reason. The petitioner alleges that he possesses all the requisite qualifications for election to the said office and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications provided under Section 25 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. After rejection of petitioner's nomination. Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 contested the election and the result is yet to be published. On these allegations, he prays for a writ quashing the order rejecting his nomination by Opposite Party No. 2 and directing holding of a fresh election.
2. This writ application was filed on 11-6-70 and on that date, the Court passed an order of interim stay of publication of the result. No counter was filed and the facts averred in the petition are not denied.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed two nomination papers as at Annexures 1 and 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order of rejection without giving any reason for the said rejection. There is also no dispute that except in respect of the entry in Column 5 of the nomination paper given in Form No. 4 there is no other defect in the remaining entries contained therein. So also, it is not disputed that the petitioner is qualified for election under Section 11 and does not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
4. The two points urged at the time of hearing are as follows; (1) whether it was within the jurisdiction of Opposite Party No. 2 to reject the nomination paper when petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications under Section 11 and does not suffer from any disqualification under Section 25 of the Act, even if there is any error in the particulars furnished against any of the entries in the nomination application given in Form No. 4 and (2) whether the information furnished in the nomination application in Form No. 4 suffers from any error or mistake.
5. Point No. 1:-- Rule 29 of the Orissa Gram Panchayats Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) runs as follows:--
"29. The Election Officer shall at the appointed time, date and place receive nomination papers separately for the office of members and Sarpanch in Form No. 4 and scrutinise them in the presence of the candidates, their proposers and seconders, if any, who may be present. If he findr that the candidates are duly qualified in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 25 of the Act, he shall approve their Candida ture. Objections, if any, filed in the course of scrutiny shall be enquired into summarily by the Election Officer and his decision accepting or rejecting the nomination papers shall be endorsed on the body of the nomination papers with reasons for the decision."
In the present case, it has been pointed out that in the entry against Item No. 5 of the nomination application given in Form No. 4 prescribed under Rule 29 of the Rules, the serial No. is given as 22 while the column requires the electoral Roll No. of a candidate. Assuming that No. 22 is not the electoral roll number of the candidate, but it is the serial No. in the register maintained for the ward under Section 9 of the Act, at the worst, it amounts to an error in giving the electoral roll No. Under Rule 29 of the Rules reproduced above, if the Election Officer finds a candidate duly qualified in accord-dance with Section 11 and not disqualified under any of the clauses of Section 25 of the Act, he shall approve his candidature. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules there is any provision for rejection of a nomination if an error is committed in respect of any particular required to be mentioned in the nomination application in Form No. 4. When admittedly petitioner possessed the qualifications under Section 11 and did not suffer from any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 25 of the Act. it was incumbent on Opposite Party No. 2 to approve his candidature. On this ground alone, the order of rejection is liable to be quashed.
Apart from it, when the serial no. in the ward register as provided in Section 9 of the Act has been given, there could not have been any difficulty in knowing the electoral roll No., even if the Assembly constituency roll no. is considered to be the correct one. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate General produced before us the electoral roll of the Assembly constituency so far it related to that Gram as well as the register maintained under Section 9 which was prepared by splitting up of the Assembly roll wardwise. Though in the register maintained under Section 9, consecutive serial Nos. for each ward are given against every entry, there is a column snowing the Assembly electoral roll number. Therefore by mentioning the ward serial no., the Assembly electoral roll no. was also available. This being so, even if it be assumed that the Assembly electoral roll no. was a requirement to be given in the form, that being available by reference to the ward serial no., there was no valid reason for rejecting the nomination.
6. Point No. 2 :-- The question for consideration under this point relates to the correct electoral roll no. of a candidate contemplated in column 5 of the Form. Neither the provisions of the Act nor the Rules are clear on the point. At the same time, the requirements of these different columns are clear from a scrutiny of the different items required to be filled in. It is not disputed that under Section 4 (1) of the Act, so much of the electoral roll of any Assembly constituency for the time being in force as relates to the Grama shall be deemed to be the electoral roll in respect of that Grama. An electoral roll of an Assembly constituency includes a number of Gramas and the voters therein carry serial nos. The serial no. appearing in that roll constitutes the electoral roll no. of a voter. Section 9 requires splitting up of the portion of the electoral roll of the Assembly constituency relating to a Grama wardwise and embodying them in a register for each ward. This wardwise register contains consecutive serial nos. of the voters for each ward, besides containing the electoral roll no. in the Assembly constituency. From a comparison of these provisions, it is clear that the electoral roll no. both under Sections 4 (1) and 9 are the same while in the case of the latter, besides the electoral roll no, there is a serial No. for each ward.
7. Coming to Form No. 4, so far as the proposer and seconder are concerned, the serial no. in the electoral roll is required to be given, while with regard to the candidate, his electoral roll no. is to be mentioned. This makes it clear that so far as the proposer and seconder are concerned what is required to be mentioned is the serial No. in the wardwise register maintained under Section 9, while as regards the candidate his electoral roll no, as appears in the Assembly constituency which is also carried into the wardwise register is required to be mentioned. Therefore in our opinion, in the present case, the serial no. of the ward given against Column 5 was an error and in its place, the electoral roll no. as in the Assembly constituency which also appearsi in the wardwise register should have been mentioned. In spite of this defect, for the reasons mentioned under point No. 1 we find that the order rejecting the nomination of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The result of the election after illegally eliminating the petitioner from contest must be held to have been materially affected.
8. Hence, we allow the writ application, quash the order of rejection of nomination of the petitioner as well as the election held after eliminating him from contest and direct issue of a writ of mandamus to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and ? to hold a fresh election for the Office nf Sarpanch accepting the nomination of the petitioner as valid. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
G.K. Misra, C.J.
9. I agree.