M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in a resident within the town limits of Gadag-Betagery municipally. Calendar of events for the election of the Town Municipal commissioners was announced on 28-6-1983. The petitioner filed her nomination paper dt. 5-7-1983 contesting for the office of the Councillor of the Town Municipal Council from the III Division of the said municipality. Her nomination paper came to be rejected by the Returning officer, who is the respondent herein, by his order dt. 7-7-1983 in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Karnataka Municipalities Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977 (hereafter referred as the 'rule' ). ( 2 ) SUB-RULE (5) of R. 15 of the rules provides for the nomination paper being accompanied by a copy of the voters list where the candidate's name is to be found when such a candidate proposes to stand/contest for election in a division to which he/she does not belong. In the absence of such voters list copy being filed, the candidate is permitted to file certified extract of the voters list relevant for that purpose and if the same is not attached or produced along with the nomination paper, the candidate is permitted to produce the same at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed by the petitioner that she belongs to Division no. VII. She also does not dispute that she did not produce a copy of the voters list pertaining to Division No. VII She also does not dispute that she nor her agent was present when the scrutiny of her nomination paper was taken. It was in that position, following Rule 15 (5) of the Rules, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. ( 4 ) I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Returning officer and therefore interfere despite the submission made by the petitioner that it is not a substantial defect. ( 5 ) I am of the view that an incomplete nomination paper which does not furnish information relevant for the Returning Officer to determine the validity of the nomination paper is a substantial defect and cannot in that circumstance lead this Court to consider sub-rule (5) of rule 15 of the Rules to be only directory and not mandatory. ( 6 ) THE petition is therefore rejected. ( 6 ) THE petition is therefore rejected. ( 7 ) THIS however does not preclude the petitioner from presenting an Election Petition that her absence at the time of scrutiny was justified on legal grounds. --- *** --- .