Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7] In the instant matter, though the objection raised by the petitioner to the nomination of respondent no.4, carried with it the certificate dated 20.2.23 issued by the respondent no.3 society stating that the respondent no.4 was a nominal member of the society, however, considering the fact that the name of the respondent no.4 was included in the provisional voters' list as prepared and submitted by the respondent no.3 society to the Returning Officer under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2014, and without any objection was also included in the final voters' list, there is clearly a controversy regarding the status of the respondent no.4 as to (4) 951wp1360.23 whether he is a nominal member or regular member. Though the respondent no.3 society has supported the stand of the petitioner in this regard, however, it is material to note that it is the respondent no.3 society itself which has prepared the provisional voters' list under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2014 and submitted the same to the Returning Officer under Rule 6(3) of the said Rules. Thus the very stand of the respondent no.3 society as now taken, is contradictory to what it had taken at the time of preparation of the provisional voters list. The nature of enquiry as contemplated by Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 2014 being summary and considering the time restraints at the time of scrutiny, it would not be permissible to the Returning Officer to hold a detailed enquiry to resolve this controversy. This therefore can only be done by the petitioner by instituting appropriate proceedings challenging the election under Section 91 of the MCS Act.