JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Hoshiarpur (respondent No. 3 herein) dismissing the election petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the election of respondents No. 4 to 12; and the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab (respondent No. 1 herein), whereby on the revision filed by respondents No. 4 to 6, 8, 9 and 11, order dated. 22.02.2006 passed in appeal by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2 herein) in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hoshiarpur dismissing the election petition of the petitioner has been restored. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Gobindpur Khun-Khun Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Gobindpur Khun-Khun. (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The election of the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 23.7.2004 for election of nine members. Fifteen persons, including the petitioner, filed nomination papers for nine seats. At the time of scrutiny, three persons had withdrawn from the contestand nomination papers of three persons, including the petitioner, were rejected. In this manner, only nine persons remained in contest, therefore, respondents No. 4 to 12 were declared as elected unanimously as members of Managing Committee of the Society. 3. The nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the same were incomplete in which column regarding his age was unfilled. Further the columns regarding place and date of verification of the nomination papers were not filled nor the nomination papers were verified by the petitioner by putting his signatures. 4. After the election, the petitioner challenged the election of respondents No. 4 to 12 by filing an election petition under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 51 and Appendix C of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hoshiarpur. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the election petition of the petitioner on 2005 while holding that the nomination papers of the petitioner were rightly rejected on the ground that columns of age, date and place of verification of the nomination papers were not filled. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2). The said appeal was accepted by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.2.2006 while holding that the nomination papers of the petitioner were illegally rejected ignoring the guidelines/instructions issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab. It was also held that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to scrutinize the nomination papers and to get them completed. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, respondents No. 4 to 6, 8, 9 and 11 filed revision petition before the Additional Registrar (I), Co-operative Societies, Punjab under Section 69 of the Act, who, vide his order dated 17.7.2006 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 2, while observing as under :- "I have carefully considered the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on file. A perusal of the record of the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hoshiarpur reveals that the statement of the petitioner now respondent No. 1 was not recorded. The nomination papers filed by the respondent No. 1 were incomplete as verification was not even signed. Further it is not the case that the respondent No. 1 requested for completing the nomination papers and the request was denied. Incomplete nomination papers in view of the Honble High Court order reported as 1994 P.L.J. page 11 could not be accepted. Further in view of the fact that Returning Officer was not requested for completing the nomination papers. In view of the above the revision petition is accepted and the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar is set aside." Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the Returning Officer has illegally rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fill the column of age and also not verified the nomination papers. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case the Returning Officer has illegally rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fill the column of age and also not verified the nomination papers. Learned counsel while referring to the guidelines for election to the Co-operative Societies in Punjab issued by the Department of Co-operation, Government of Punjab, submitted that no nomination paper should be rejected merely on the basis of clerical error or conjectures. Since rejection of nomination papers of an eligible candidate implies denial of a basic tight to contest, rejection of nomination papers should be carefully considered. Further, as per the said guidelines, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to get the nomination papers completed at the time of scrutiny. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Rule 23 of Appendix C of the Rules which again provides that while scrutinizing the nomination papers, the Returning Officer may permit any clerical error in the nomination papers in regard to names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the list of voters, and further where necessary, direct that any printing error in the said entries may be overlooked. While referring to these provisions, learned counsel submitted that the Returning Officer should have provided an opportunity for making the corrections with regard to the minor mistakes in the nomination papers of the petitioner and should not have rejected the same on mere technicalities. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in Shri Shopat Rai v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, 1973 P.L.J. 757 and Sukhminder Singh and another v. The Dailpur Majra Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. and others, (1996-2)113 PLR 533. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Mohan Singh, (1992-2)102 PLR 482, submitted that even if the nomination papers were not verified by the petitioner, it was a mere irregularly which could be rectified at a later stage. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioner did not mention his age of the nomination papers. He also did not verify the same. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioner did not mention his age of the nomination papers. He also did not verify the same. These defects in the nomination papers were not of minor nature but it goes to the very eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election. Under Rule 33(a) of the by-laws, no person below 21 years of age is eligible to contest the election as committee member. He further submitted that under Rule 5 of Appendix C of the Rules. "the nomination papers duly completed shall reach the Returning Officer by such date, time and place as may be specified by the bye-laws." Since the petitioner has not filled the column of age, which was very necessary, because without showing that he was over 21 years of age, he was not eligible to contest the election. Therefore, the petitioner did not submit duly completed nomination papers by the time prescribed in the election program which was before scrutiny. Learned counsel further submitted that without verification of the nomination papers, the same cannot be treated as complete nomination papers. Therefore, the Returning Officer has rightly rejected nomination papers of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the contesting respondents relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Lila Kishan v. Mani Ram Godara and others, AIR 1985 SC 1073 a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chuhar Singh v. Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab and others, 1994 PLJ 11 Lila Kishans case (supra), it has been observed that where serial number of vote of proper mentioned in the nomination paper did not tally with serial number mentioned in voters list and no assistance provided to the Returning Officer to correlate and identify the proposer, the rejection of nomination paper was held to be not illegal. 10. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner has no merits and that the impugned orders passed by the Election Tribunal as well as respondent No. 1 are perfectly valid. 11. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not filled the column regarding his age. Further, the columns regarding place and date of verification of nomination papers were also not filled. 11. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not filled the column regarding his age. Further, the columns regarding place and date of verification of nomination papers were also not filled. At the time of scrutiny, the petitioner was not present and it appears that, he did not ask the Returning Officer to remove the defects in the nomination papers. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers as the same were found incomplete. The non- mentioning of the age and non-verification of the nomination papers cannot be taken as a minor mistake. When the minimum age to contest the election has been prescribed, which is 21 years of age in the present case, the mentioning of the age in the nomination papers is an essential requirement and if the same has not been disclosed it hits the very eligibility of the candidate. This defect in the nomination papers of the petitioner was of substantial in character and not of a minor. Similarly the nomination paper without verification by the candidate is no nomination paper. As per the guidelines for election to the Co-operative Societies in Punjab issued by the Department of Co-operation, Government of Punjab, at the time of scrutiny, the Returning Officer should not reject the nomination paper merely on the basis of clerical error or conjectures. He should permit such candidate to correct the clerical error, but that too, in regard to names or numbers in order to bring them in conformity with the corresponding entries in the list of voters. But the Returning Officer cannot permit the candidate to make correction in the column which relates to the eligibility of the candidate to contest the election or to verify the election petition which was not earlier verified within the time prescribed. Rule 5 of Appendix C of the Rules provides that "the nomination papers duly completed shall reach the returning Officer by such date, time and place as may be specified by the bye-laws." Section 26 of the Act mandates that election shall be held as per procedure prescribed and the procedure is prescribed in Appendix C. Since in the instant case duly completed nomination papers of the petitioner did not reach the Returning Officer as required under Rule 5 of the rules, therefore, the same were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer could not have allowed the petitioner to make correction in the column of age or to verify the nomination papers which he did not verify within the time prescribed. The requirement to file duly completed nomination papers by the time provided in the election programme is mandatory and on account of non-compliance with the same his nomination papers have been rightly rejected. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to get the nomination paper duly completed, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case where the mistake goes to the root of the matter. 12. In Shopat Rais case (supra), the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected only on the ground that the zone from which he was seeking election, was not mentioned in the proper column. In that situation, it was held that it was the duty of the Returning officer to held the petitioner and to get the mistake rectified. In that circumstances, the rejection of the nomination paper was held to be illegal. 13. In Sukhminder Singhs case (supra), the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that correct account No. was not given in the nomination paper. It was thus held by this Court that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner was illegal and without any foundation or basis. Consequently the election to the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society was quashed. 14. The aforesaid decisions do not support the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. In these cases, the mistakes in the nomination papers were not of substantial character. But in the instant case the nomination papers of the petitioner were found incomplete in which column regarding his age was unfilled. Further the column regarding place and date of verification of nomination papers were also not filled. Therefore, the mistakes committed by the petitioner in the instant case are of substantial character and not of minor and as per the statutory requirement, the nomination papers duly completed shall reach the Returning Officer by such date, time and place as may be specified by the bye-laws. Therefore, the Returning Officer was fully justified in rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner. 15. Therefore, the Returning Officer was fully justified in rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned orders in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.