Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1543 (PNJ)

Mukhtiar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-09

JASWANT SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2008
Judgment SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the election of Panches of the Gram Panchayat of Village Kothe Theh Wale Kotkapura, Tahsil and District Faridkot held on 26-5-2008 on the ground that the nomination papers of the petitioner were illegally rejected by the Presiding Officer because he had not signed the same. 2. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Presiding Officer, it has been stated that nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected because the same did not bear the signatures of the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this fact. 5. In view of this admitted factual position that the petitioner did not sign the nomination paper, in our opinion, the nomination paper was rightly rejected by the Presiding Officer. 6. Section 38 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (For short "1994 Act") provides as under : 38. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. (1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of Section 35, each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven O clock in the forenoon and three Oclock in the afternoon deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under Section 36, a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer : Provided that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer on a day which is a public holiday. (2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste is a Schedule Caste of the State. (2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste is a Schedule Caste of the State. (3) Where the candidate is a person who, having, held any office referred to in clause (i) of Section 11 has been dismissed and a period of four years has not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State. (4) On the presentation of nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidates and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls: Provided that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or the nomination paper and no clerical or technical or printing error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of any such person, in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the nomination paper with respect to such person or place in any case where the description in regard to the name of the person or place is such as to be commonly understood; and the Returning Officer shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error to be corrected and where necessary direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical or technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be overlooked. (5) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper: Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the Returning Officer for election in the same constituency.(Emphasis added)" 7. (5) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper: Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the Returning Officer for election in the same constituency.(Emphasis added)" 7. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 38 of 1994 Act reveals that a candidate is required to file the nomination paper before the date appointed under Clause (a) of Section 35 to the Returning Officer completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and sub-section (4) provides that on presentation of the nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidates and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls. Proviso to this sub-section provides that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical or technical or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or the nomination paper shall affect the final operation of the electoral roll or the nomination paper with respect to such person or place; and any clerical or technical or printing error in regard to the electoral rolls numbers shall be overlooked by the Returning Officer. This proviso does not provide that if the candidate has not signed the nomination paper itself, then that can be overlooked under this Section. The candidate is required to submit his nomination paper complete in all respect before date appointed under Clause (a) of Section 35 to the Returning Officer and that nomination paper must be signed by the candidate. If before the prescribed time, the candidate has not presented the nomination paper complete in all respect including his signatures, then such nomination paper can not be deemed to be presented complete in all respect on the prescribed proforma before the date appointed and such nomination paper is liable to be rejected. 8. If before the prescribed time, the candidate has not presented the nomination paper complete in all respect including his signatures, then such nomination paper can not be deemed to be presented complete in all respect on the prescribed proforma before the date appointed and such nomination paper is liable to be rejected. 8. Similar view has been taken by this Court in case CWP No. 16553 of 2006, titled as Shingara Singh v. Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others, decided on 20-8-2008 where the similar rules pertaining to the Cooperative Societies were interpreted and it was held that if a candidate does not sign his nomination papers, then his nomination paper is to be taken as incomplete and such nomination paper cannot be taken as valid nomination paper in the eye of law. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground for setting aside the election of the Panches of the said Gram Panchayat and to quash the impugned orders in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Dismissed.