JUDGMENT 1. - This is an election petition under section 80 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenging the election of Harlal Singh, respondent, to Shri Madhopur Assembly Constituency of Rajasthan on the ground that the nomination Paper of one Gopal Singh was improperly rejected. The petition has been contested on behalf of Harlal Singh. On the pleadings of the parties the following preliminary issue has been framed:- "Even assuming that all the facts asserted in the petition are true, was the nomination paper of Shri Gopal Singh wrongly rejected in view of the provisions contained in section 33(5) read with section 36(2) (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951?" 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the above issue. A number of candidates filed their nomination papers including one Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh was not an elector from Shri Madhopur Constituency, but was an elector from Khandala Constituency. He filed his nomination paper on 20th January, 1967, in which it was mentioned that his name appeared on the electoral roll of Khandala Assembly Constituency (No. 31) at serial No. 58 of part 75. Along with the nomination paper Gopal Singh did not file a copy of the electoral roll of Khandala Constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entry in the roll containing his name as required by section 33(5). The Returning Officer made the following note on the nomination paper on 20th January, 1967:- "Certified copy of roll is to be produced". 3. On 21st January, 1967 which was the date fixed for scrutiny Gopal Singh did not produce before the Returning Officer either a copy of the electoral roll of Khandala Constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entry as required by section 33(5). The Returning Officer consequently rejected his nomination paper by the following order:- "The scrutiny of the nomination paper was made by me. The candidate Shri Gopal Singh failed to produce either a certified copy of the voters list of his constituency or any other true copy. The requirement of a valid nomination under section 33 of the Representation of People Act 1951 sub-section (5) has not been fulfilled, hence the nomination paper is rejected". 4. The candidate Shri Gopal Singh failed to produce either a certified copy of the voters list of his constituency or any other true copy. The requirement of a valid nomination under section 33 of the Representation of People Act 1951 sub-section (5) has not been fulfilled, hence the nomination paper is rejected". 4. Shri Taj Narain, Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-Thana was the Returning Officer for Shri Madhopur Assembly Constituency as well as for Khandala Assembly Constituency. 21st January 1967 was fixed by him for the scrutiny of nomination papers for both the constituencies. First he examined the nomination papers for Shri Madhopur Constituency when he passed the above order. On behalf of the petitioner it is pointed out that under section 36(2) the Returning Officer is required to hold a summary inquiry before rejecting a nomination paper and under section 36(4) he cannot reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. It is argued that the Returning Officer had in his possession the electoral roll of Khandala Constituency and as full particulars of the serial number and part of the electoral roll for this constituency in which the name of Gopal Singh was to be found were given in his nomination paper the Returning Officer should have referred to the electoral roll and should not have rejected the nomination paper, because if he had so referred to the electoral roll of Khandala Constituency he would have easily found the name of Gopal Singh in it. The argument is that the object of section 33(5) is to enable the Returning Officer to check whether the person standing for election is qualified for the purpose and this object is sufficiently achieved if full particulars are given by a candidate with the help of which his name on the electoral roll, which is in the possession of the Returning Officer, can be easily located, even though it may be the electoral roll of another constituency. Reliance was placed on the following observations made in para 7 of the A.I.R. report of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1626 :- "Then we come to section 33(5). The object of this provision obviously is to enable the returning officer to check whether the person standing for election is qualified for the purpose. The object of this provision obviously is to enable the returning officer to check whether the person standing for election is qualified for the purpose. The electoral roll of the constituency for which the returning officer is making scrutiny would be with him, and it is not necessary for a candidate to produce the copy of the roll of that constituency. But where the candidate belongs to another constituency the returning officer would not have the roll of that other constituency with him and therefore the provision contained in section 33(5) has been made by the legislature to enable the returning officer to check that the candidate is qualified for standing for election". 5. It is contended that in this case the Returning Officer had the electoral roll of Khandala Constituency with him and the object of section 33(5) was fully achieved by giving the serial number and part of the electoral roll of Khandela Constituency in which the name of Gopal Singh appeared. 6. On behalf of the respondent reliance is placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chand Singh v. Shankarlal, 20 E.L.R. 63 in which the facts were exactly similar. It was held that the provision contained in section 33 (5) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 that where a candidate who files a nomination is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall be produced, before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny, is not directory but mandatory in its nature, and a nomination paper can be properly rejected if the above mentioned provision is not complied with. The fact that the returning officer before whom the nomination is filed is also the returning officer of the constituency, in the roll of which the candidate's name is entered as a voter, would not render the rejection of the nomination in such a case improper. The fact that the returning officer before whom the nomination is filed is also the returning officer of the constituency, in the roll of which the candidate's name is entered as a voter, would not render the rejection of the nomination in such a case improper. It was pointed out that while under section 33 of the Act before it was amended in 1956 it was the returning officer on whom the duty was cast to verify from the electoral roll that the name of the candidate appeared in the electoral roll of any constituency and he was to direct the person presenting the nomination paper to produce the documents referred therein for the purpose of satisfying himself that the names in the nomination paper were the same as were entered in the electoral roll, under the amended law the duty is on the candidate to produce the relevant documents referred to in section 33(5). 7. In the above case the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baru Ram v. Smt. Prasanni and others, 16 E.L.R. 450 : AIR 1959 SC 93 was followed. In that case Jai Bhagwan presented his nomination paper to the Returning Officer on the 29th of January, 1956, for contesting the election of the Rajaund constituency in the District of Kamal. He was admittedly not an elector in that constituency. It was stated that he was an elector in another constituency but when he presented his nomination paper he did not produce a copy of the electoral roll of the other constituency or the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entry in the said roll. Nor did he produce any of these documents on the 1st of February, 1957, which was the date for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, when the Returning Officer found that the candidate had not produced the relevant document he gave him at his request two hours time to produce it. The candidate failed to produce the document within the time allowed. In consequence the Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper under section 3612) (b) of the Act. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that the rejection of the nomination paper under the circumstances said above was not justified. The candidate failed to produce the document within the time allowed. In consequence the Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper under section 3612) (b) of the Act. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that the rejection of the nomination paper under the circumstances said above was not justified. Their Lordships referred to the provisions of sections 33 to 36 of the Act in this connection and laid down as follows : "There is no doubt that in the present case there was failure on the part of Jai Bhagwan to comply with section 33(5) and prima facie section 36(2) seems to justify the rejection of his nomination paper on that ground. Section 33(5) requires the candidate to supply the prescribed copy and section 36(2 )(b) provides that on his failure to comply with the said requirement his nomination paper is liable to be rejected. In other words, this is a case where the statute requires the candidate to produce the prescribed evidence and provides a penalty for failure to do so. In such a case it is difficult to appreciate the relevance or validity of the argument that the requirement of section 33(5) is not mandatory, but is directory, because the statute itself has made it clear that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to the rejection of the nomination paper. Whenever the statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence it would be difficult to accept the argument that the failure to comply with the said requirement should lead to any other consequence". 8. It was also argued before their Lordships that under section 36(4) of the Act the Returning Officer cannot reject the nomination paper on the ground of any defect which was not of a substantial character. It was urged that failure to produce the requisite copy was not a defect of a substantial character. Their Lordships overruled this contention by observing that "where, however, the statute requires specific facts to be proved in a specific way and it also provides for the consequence of non-compliance with the said requirement at would be difficult to resist the application of the penalty clause on the ground that such an application is based on technical approach". 9. Their Lordships overruled this contention by observing that "where, however, the statute requires specific facts to be proved in a specific way and it also provides for the consequence of non-compliance with the said requirement at would be difficult to resist the application of the penalty clause on the ground that such an application is based on technical approach". 9. So far as the decision in Ranjit Singh's case(1) is concerned it does not affect the decision in Baru Ram's case(3) in any way. In Ranjit Singh's case one Wazir Singh had filed three nomination papers for the same constituency. With one of them he had attached a copy of a part of the electoral roll. He attached no such copy with the other two nomination papers. Their Lordships held that Wazir Singh had complied with the requirement of section 33(5) by the following reasoning:- "Section 33(5) does not require that a copy must be filed with each, nomination paper, for the candidate is given the alternative to produce before the returning officer such copy at the time of the scrutiny. So the candidate need not file any copy with the nomination paper and it is enough if he has a copy in his possession which he produces before the returning officer at the time of the scrutiny. Further there is nothing in section 33(5) which requires that if a candidate has (say) filed four nomination papers he should have four copies with him to produce before the returning officer at the time of the scrutiny. It would in our opinion be enough if he has one copy with him at the time of the scrutiny and shows it again and again as each nomination paper is taken up for scrutiny by the returning officer. We see no sense in holding that in such a situation the candidate should arm himself with four copies for purpose of showing the copy to the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. The same copy in our opinion can be produced again and again before the returning officer as he takes up the scrutiny of each of the nomination papers filed on behalf of a candidate. If that is so we see no difficulty in holding that where a number of nomination papers have been filed and a copy has been filed with one of them, that is enough. If that is so we see no difficulty in holding that where a number of nomination papers have been filed and a copy has been filed with one of them, that is enough. Again we see nothing in section 33(5) which prevents a returning officer from looking at the copy filed with one nomination paper, even after that nomination paper has been rejected or with a nomination paper which is pending before him for scrutiny, when he comes to deal with other nomination paper". 10. Their Lordships did not hold that the requirement of section 33(5) was not mandatory. I am accordingly of the opinion that the decision of their Lordships in Ranjit Singh's case(1) does not affect the correctness of the decision of this Court in Chand Singh v. Shankarlal, 20 ELR 63 . 11. I am of the opinion that section 33(5) is mandatory and the rejection of the nomination paper of Gopal Singh for non-compliance with this requirement under section 36(2)(b) is proper. The election petition filed by Khyali Ram is accordingly dismissed with costs. Under rule 24 I assess the advocate's fee at Rs. 200/-. 12. Autheanticated copies of this judgment shall be sent to the Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and the Election Commission as required by section 103.Petition Dismissed. *******