ORDER T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This petition for revision has been filed under Section 20-A (5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the dismissal of an election petition filed by the petitioner Jhalkansingh challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Seth Jasrajmal on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No. 2 Seth Komalchand was wrongly rejected. 2. The petitioner is a voter in the Gayadutt Ward of the Municipal Committee, Narsimhapur. Four nomination papers were filed for contesting the election to a seat in that Ward on 12-9-1958. The nomination paper of respondent No. 1 Seth Jasrajmal was accepted, that of respondent No. 2 Seth Komalchand was rejected and the remaining two candidates (respondents 3 and 4) withdrew. Seth Jasrajmal (respondent No. 1) was, therefore, declared elected. 3. The petitioner states that the defect in the nomination paper filed by respondent No. 2 Seth Komalchand was that he had not mentioned his number in the voters list of the Ward. The contention which was raised before the Election Tribunal and has been rejected is that the rule requiring entry of the number in the voters' list is directory and the ommission to do so should not have been considered material. 4. It may be mentioned here that Seth Komalchand himself was not aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper. He had filed an application before the Tribunal accepting the position that the rejection of the nomination paper was proper and that the declaration of Seth Jasrajmal as duly elected was correct. 5. Shri A. P. Sen for the petitioner relies upon Pratap Singh Vs. Shri Krishna Gupta AIR 1956 SC 140 , in which their Lordships had occasion to consider the omission to fill in "occupation'' in the nomination form for a Municipal election. The implications of the rule on the point were considered and their Lordships observed as follows:- Some rules are vital and go to the root of the matter; they cannot be broken; others are only directory and a breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance with the rules read as whole and provided no prejudice ensue; and when the legislature does not itself State which is which judges must determine the matter and, exercising a nice discrimination, sort out one class from the other along broad based, commonsense lines. Discussing the question whether the omission to mention the occupation of the candidate was material, their Lordships stated that this entry was wholly unnecessary and the omission to fill it did not in any way affect the merits of the case. It was also found that by an amendment made in 1949 the word 'occupation' was substituted in the form for the word 'caste'; but the forms in possession of the Municipal Committee were not amended in accordance with the amendment. As the candidate filled in the form supplied by the Municipal Committee itself, be was net to blame for the omission. Under these special circumstances, the omission was held to be immaterial. 6. In view of the decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra), it is necessary to determine whether the omission to give the number in the electoral roll, in the instant case, was a substantial defect in the form. Now, the number in the voters' list is required to be given in the form for enabling the Returning Officer to find out whether the candidate is a voter in the list and is thus qualified to contest the election. In the absence of such a number, it is almost impossible for the Returning Officer to find out whether the candidate possesses the necessary qualification. The roll contains several names and the Returning Officer cannot attribute any particular entry to the candidate. The object of the form is that the proposer and the seconder must take the responsibility of the correctness of the entry regarding the number in it. It is pertinent to observe that no attempt was made when the Election Tribunal heard the petition to show whether Seth Komalchand was really enrolled in the voter's list; nor has any material been placed before me to show that he is so enrolled In fact, from the record it is impossible to find out whether Seth Komalchand is really enrolled as a voter. 7. It appears to me that the omission to give the number in the voters' list is a substantial defect. In fact, the entry regarding the number in the electoral roll is necessary for determining a material question connected with the nomination of the candidate, i.e. whether he is duly qualified to contest the election. 8. 7. It appears to me that the omission to give the number in the voters' list is a substantial defect. In fact, the entry regarding the number in the electoral roll is necessary for determining a material question connected with the nomination of the candidate, i.e. whether he is duly qualified to contest the election. 8. In Ramayan Shukla vs. Rajendra Prasad Singh 16 ELR 491 and in Balasubrahmanyan vs. Election Tribunal 7 ELR 496 the Patna and Madras High Courts have taken the tame view. In those cases, the number in the electrol roll was given, but the constituency to which that roll pertained was not mentioned In the Madras case it was observed: ...the omission to give the particulars as to the electoral roll and the serial number therein was a good ground for the rejection of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer under Section 36 (2) (d) of the Act. In one sense, this non-compliance is intimately bound up with the other defect, namely, that the petitioner was not on the roll of any Parliamentary constituency on the date of the nomination. 9. Shri A P. Sen for the petitioner also referred to Solaiman vs. Noor Mohammad AIR 1944 Cal. 395. In that case, the number in the voters' list was given, but instead of mentioning the correct No. 102' No. 12' was given. It was held that this was a clerical mistake and that there had been substantial compliance with the rules. That case is distinguishable on the ground that the error there arose from an inadvertent slip, whereas in the present case there has been no compliance of the requirements of the form at all. 10. Rule 9 of the Rules framed under Section 10 of the Act, as printed on page 135 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Manual, requires that the candidate should file a nomination form completed in the form appended below the rule. I agree that all the entries in this form may not be mandatory and the omission to fill some of them may, under special circumstances, not be vital to the nomination. But as I have already said, the omission to fill the number in the voters' list must be considered to be mandatory, as it is on that basis that the qualification of the candidate to contest the election is determined. 11. But as I have already said, the omission to fill the number in the voters' list must be considered to be mandatory, as it is on that basis that the qualification of the candidate to contest the election is determined. 11. The contention that in the absence of an objection by the other candidates to the nomination paper, the Returning Officer should have accepted it, is without substance. It is the duty of the Election Officer to see that the candidate contesting the election is duly qualified and if he is not satisfied, sub-rule (iii) of Rule 9 gives him power to reject the nomination paper "of his own motion". The grounds given in clauses (a) to (e) below sub-rule (iii) are not exhaustive. The provisions of the Act also have to be satisfied before a nomination paper can be accepted. It has also to be seen whether the candidate possesses the qualifications laid down in Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Act. 12. There was a substantial defect in the nomination paper and I agree with the Election Tribunal that it had been rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. 13. The next contention raised by Shri A. P. Sen for the petitioner is that the withdrawal by the two candidates, Seth Manakchand and Shri Gehimal (respondents 3 and 4) was not in writing. I find that they had actually filed a written application on 28-9-1958. The objection is thus based on misapprehension of facts. It was also contended that the Returning Officer should have recorded a formal order of acceptance of the withdrawal. This is not necessary under the Act or the rules. The fact that the Returning Officer notified the name of the remaining candidate as duly elected implies that the withdrawal were accepted, even if such acceptance was necessary, 14. There is no substance in this petition for revision. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 50 only. Petition dismissed