JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Homeopathic practitioners are to be elected to the State Board of Homeopathic Medicine under the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 (Act VIII of 1957). The Petitioners and Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 12 and Borne other persons filed nomination on 6-1.1968. Out of 33 nomination papers, 23 were rejected. In all there were 19 candidates. The nomination papers of 9 candidates were rejected. So ten returned uncontested. The Petitioners are amongst the persons whose nomination papers were rejected. The nomination papers of these three Petitioners were rejected on one of the common grounds that their signatures under the declaration to be given in the nomination papers and the signatures of the proposers and seconders were not genuine. The nomination of Petitioner No. 1 was rejected on an additional ground that he made the security deposit in cash through an agent and not in person. It is against the order rejecting their nomination, the writ application has been filed. 2. There is no provision under the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) or in the Criminal Homeopathic Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) that security deposit is to be made by the candidate himself. The column in the Form of the nomination paper (Form B) is to the following effect: I hereby send Re. 100/- in cash by postal money order/cash order or pay in person. Emphasis is laid on the expression "pay in person" and it was contended that unless the security deposit is made in person by the candidate himself, there is no security deposit in accordance with law and as such the nomination shall be rejected. There is no substance in this contention. As has already been stated, there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rule that unless the security deposit is made in cash by the candidate himself, the nomination paper is to be rejected. We construe the aforesaid expression that security deposit would be paid in person as directory and not mandatory. The nomination cannot be rejected on that ground. 3. So far as the second objection is concerned, the application was filed by Dr. D.C. Parida saying that all the signatures of the candidates, proposers and seconders in an the nomination papers should be verified by the Returning Officer. The nomination cannot be rejected on that ground. 3. So far as the second objection is concerned, the application was filed by Dr. D.C. Parida saying that all the signatures of the candidates, proposers and seconders in an the nomination papers should be verified by the Returning Officer. He did not file any affidavit nor asserted that any of the signatures was not genuine to his knowledge. The objection was one of general nature. The Returning Officer did not give any reason saying that the signatures in the nomination papers of the Petitioners were not genuine. He merely recorded on the nomination papers that they were rejected saying that those candidates were absent. No evidence was taken that those signatures were not genuine. The Returning Officer filed an affidavit in this Court at a preliminary stage but he did not assert that to his knowledge or on the basis of any evidence he came to the conclusion that the impugned signatures were not genuine. Dr. D.C. Parida also did not file any affidavit in this Court to support his stand. The position is that the nomination papers of the Petitioners were rejected without any evidence in support of a finding that the signatures were not genuine. We accordingly quash the order of the Returning Officer that the nomination papers of the Petitioners were invalid. Their nomination papers must accordingly be accepted. Once the nominations of these three Petitioners are accepted as valid, opposite parties Nos. 3 to 12 cannot be declared to have been returned uncontested. Consequently, the election of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 12 must be quashed as being invalid. 4. We accordingly quash the order rejecting the nomination papers of the Petitioners and declare the election of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 12 as void. A writ of certiorari be accordingly issued. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. B.C. Das, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed