Judgment Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 07.03.2014, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, has been dismissed. By the writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Government dated 18.06.2012, by which order the rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent as well as the election of the petitioner on 25.05.2011 as Member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine were set aside. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are-Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 provides for constitution of Central Council. The Central Council consists of various members from each State. Members representing the systems of medicine, i.e. Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani are elected from among the persons included in the register maintained by the State. For election of one member from Siddha members in State of Kerala, notification dated 04.05.2011 was issued fixing 17.05.2011 as last date for receipt of nomination. Petitioner and respondent No.5, both submitted their nominations for election. Scrutiny of nomination papers took place on 18.05.2011. The Returning Officer, on 18.05.2011, rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent and consequently, by order dated 25.05.2011 declared the petitioner to be duly elected unopposed as a member to the Central Council of Indian Medicine to represent Siddha system of medicine from State of Kerala. Fifth respondent submitted an appeal under Section 4 (2) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 1970 Act) praying for setting aside the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination. Respondent No.5 also filed W.P.(C)No. 14771/2011 in which, interim order was passed staying all further proceedings. The said writ petition was subsequently disposed of observing that dispute regarding election having been raised, thus, Central Government may consider the appeal filed by the fifth respondent on merits which shall be done with notice to the petitioner and fifth respondent within two months. After the order of this Court dated 23.03.2012, Central Government issued a notice on 25.04.2012 fixing 04.05.2012 as the date for hearing and calling upon the petitioner to appear on 04.05.2012. Copy of the representation filed by the fifth respondent was also sent to the petitioner by the said notice. Petitioner appeared on 04.05.2012 and submitted his written statement and was heard orally. Copy of the representation filed by the fifth respondent was also sent to the petitioner by the said notice. Petitioner appeared on 04.05.2012 and submitted his written statement and was heard orally. An enquiry officer was appointed by the Central Government to enquire into the allegations raised by the fifth respondent. After completing the hearing on 04.05.2012, he submitted a report on 08.05.2012. The enquiry officer held that rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent was totally wrong and declaring the election of the petitioner as member of Central Council of Indian Medicine was null and void. The Government of India, vide its order dated 18.06.2012, allowed the representation of the fifth respondent and declared the election of petitioner as a member to the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), Siddha from State of Kerala as null and void. Challenging the order dated 18.06.2012 W.P.(C) No.15178/2012 has been filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 17.03.2014 giving rise to this writ appeal. 3. We have heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.Sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the appeal raised following submissions: (i) The Central Government by notification dated 15.03.2012 added Rule 25 in Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 providing for declaring an election as void. The Rule having come into the statute only on 15.03.2012, there is no power with the Central Government to annul the election which was declared on 25.05.2011, much before enforcement of the Rule. (ii) Even if the power to annul an election can be exercised by the Central Government, the said power can be exercised only on the grounds given in Rule 25 and the Central Government having not exercised the power on any of the grounds as envisaged under Rule 25, the order of the Central Government annulling the election of the petitioner is unsustainable. (iii) The nomination paper submitted by respondent No. 5 contains an instruction, requiring mentioning of name and registered qualification of proposer and seconder, which instructions are statutory. The proposer and seconder having not written their names and qualifications in the nomination paper of respondent No.5, there was violation of statutory instructions and the Retuning Officer has rightly rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent. The proposer and seconder having not written their names and qualifications in the nomination paper of respondent No.5, there was violation of statutory instructions and the Retuning Officer has rightly rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent. (iv) The enquiry officer heard the petitioner on 04.05.2012, whereas respondent No.5 was called for hearing on 10.04.2012 which clearly violates the principles of natural justice vitiating the enquiry report as well as the order of the Central Government. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent was contrary to the 1975 Rules and has been rightly set aside by the Central Government. He submits that proposer and seconder both have -signed in the nomination paper and had written their registration numbers as shown in the State Register of Indian Medicine which could have very well be verified from having a look into the register and non mentioning of their names was not such a defect on which nomination paper could have been rejected. He submits that Returning Officer was obliged to hold an enquiry before taking a decision. He having not held any enquiry, his decision is vitiated. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the fifth respondent that both proposer and seconder were present at the time of scrutiny of the nomination, including the fifth respondent, the Returning Officer by making enquiry could have satisfied himself about the name of proposer and seconder. It is submitted that signatures of the proposer and seconder were genuine and the grounds given in Rule ll(2)(d) of 1975 Rules could not have been invoked by the Retuning Officer for rejecting the nomination of the fifth respondent. He submits that there was no violation of principles of natural justice since the enquiry officer heard both petitioner and the fifth respondent. Petitioner was given notice by the enquiry officer after perusing the representation/appeal submitted by the fifth respondent and after hearing the fifth respondent, it was decided to give notice and call the petitioner to appear and file his statement and bring his evidence. There is. no violation of principles of natural justice since full opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say. The principles of natural justice were fully complied with. 6. There is. no violation of principles of natural justice since full opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say. The principles of natural justice were fully complied with. 6. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on various judgments of this Court and Apex Court which shall be referred to later while considering their submissions in detail. 7. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to note the statutory provisions governing the field. Section 3(1)(a) of 1970 Act contemplates election of members from Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine to Central Council of Indian Medicine. Section 3 (1)(a) is quoted as below: "3. Constitution of Central Council.- (1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the purposes of this Act a Central Council consisting of the following members, namely:- (a) Such number of members not exceeding five as may be determined by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule for each of the Ayurveda, siddha and Unani systems of medicine from each State in which a State in which a State Register of Indian Medicine is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on that Register as practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani, as the case may be." 8. For conducting election of the members under Section 3(1), rules have been framed, namely, Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules). Rule 3 provides for persons entitled to vote. Rule 4 provides for posting of copies of State Register of Indian Medicine. Rules 3 and 4 are as follows: "3. Persons entitled to vote.- All persons whose names are enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine Practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Systems of Medicine shall be entitled to vote at the election of members to represent the Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani System of Medicine, as the case may be, under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3. 4. Posting of copies of State Register of Indian Medicine.-(1) Copies of the State Register of Indian Medicine shall be posted at the Office of the Returning Officer of the State concerned. 4. Posting of copies of State Register of Indian Medicine.-(1) Copies of the State Register of Indian Medicine shall be posted at the Office of the Returning Officer of the State concerned. (2) The Register shall be brought up-to-date before posting and for this purpose, the Returning Officer shall give one month's notice to the Registrar (by whatever name called) of the Board concerned, who maintains the register in the State." Rule 8 of 1975 Rules provides for nomination of candidates. Rules 9 deals with nomination paper Rule 11 provides for scrutiny of nomination papers. Rules 8, 9 and 11 which are relevant for the present case are as follows: "8. Nomination of candidates.- Any person qualified to stand for the election under section 5 may be nominated as a candidate for election and such nomination shall be made by means of a nomination paper in Form I which shall be supplied by the Returning Officer to any elector who may apply for the same. 9. Nomination papers.- (1) Each nomination paper shall be subscribed by two electors as proposer and seconder and shall contain a declaration signed by the person proposed signifying his consent to stand for the election-: (1A) No elector shall subscribe, whether as proposer or as seconder, more than one nomination paper at the same election, and if he does, his signature shall be inoperative on any paper other than the one first delivered. (IB) Nothing in this rule shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper for the same election: Provided that not more than four nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the Returning Officer. (2) On receipt of each nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall forthwith endorse thereupon the date of hour of receipt." 11. Scrutiny of nomination papers.- (1) On the date and at the time appointed by the Returning Officer for the Scrutiny of the nomination papers, the candidates and the proposer and the seconder of each candidate may attend the office of the Returning Officer, who shall allow them to examine the nomination papers of all the candidates which have been received by him as aforesaid. (2) The Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination paper on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) That on the date appointed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, the candidate does not possess a recognised medical qualification for standing in an election. (b) That he is not enrolled on the State. Register of Indian Medicine and does not reside in the State from which he stands for election. (c) That the nomination paper is not received by the Returning Officer on or before the appointed time and date. (d) That the signature of the candidate or the proposer or the seconder on the nomination paper is not genuine. (e) That the signature of the proposer or the seconder is contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (1A) of rule 9. (f) That the proposer or the seconder is not entitled to vote at such election." 9. The nomination for a member of Siddha system of medicine was filed both by petitioner and respondent No.5. The nomination paper was submitted in Form I as prescribed in 1975 Rules. The nomination paper was duly filled by respondent No.5 with all details for which there is no dispute. One Dr.Arun B.Raj was the proposer of fifth respondent who signed in column No.7, in the column of "signature of proposer". In column No.8, which provides for "registration number of proposer in the State Register of Indian Medicine", registration No. 196 was mentioned. The nomination was seconded by one Dr.Melgibson who also signed in column No.9 and in column No. 10, he mentioned his registration number. The Returning Officer, on scrutiny of the nomination paper, rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent. 10. Rule 25 in 1975 Rules was added by notification dated 15.03.2012. The nomination was seconded by one Dr.Melgibson who also signed in column No.9 and in column No. 10, he mentioned his registration number. The Returning Officer, on scrutiny of the nomination paper, rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent. 10. Rule 25 in 1975 Rules was added by notification dated 15.03.2012. Rule 25, which is relevant for the present case, is as follows: "Power to declare any election void.- (1) The Central Government may, on any election dispute referred to it under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, for an election, within a period of thirty days from the .date of election of the elected candidate, declare the election to be void on account of bribery, undue influence or other corrupt practice which, in the opinion of the Central Government, has interfered with the free and. fair conduct of the election and shall conduct a fresh election. (2) The decision of the Central Government under this rule shall be final." There was further amendment to 1975 Rules by notification dated 18.05.2012 where Rule 28 was added providing for procedure for dealing with election disputes. 11. Now, we consider the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that power to annul the election came in the statute by Rule 25 only on 15.03.2012, hence, Central Government could not have annulled the election of the petitioner which was declared on 25.05.2011. He submits that Rule 25 cannot be interpreted as having any retrospective operation. 12. Section 4 of 1970 Act provides for mode of election, which reads as follows: "4. Mode of election.-(1) An election under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be conducted by the Central Government in accordance with such rules as may be made by it in this behalf. (2) Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final." Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that an election shall be conducted by the Central Government in accordance with such rules as may be made by it in this behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides, where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. . 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides, where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. . 13. In the present case, the dispute arose pertaining to rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent. Fifth respondent immediately submitted an appeal to the Central Government under Section 4(2) of 1970 Act praying for setting aside the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination. Another appeal was submitted praying for setting aside the order dated 25.05.2011 declaring the petitioner as elected unopposed. Rule 25 was added to the 1975 Rules only on 15.03.2012. The question is as to whether prior to incorporation of Rule 25 to 1975 Rules, when petitioner was declared as duly elected on 25.05.2011, the said Rule can be made applicable for setting aside the .election dated 25.05.2011. There is nothing to indicate that the said Rule shall have any retrospective operation. The question is as to whether prior to enforcement of Rule 25, was there any power in the Central Government to declare an election void. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 is widely worded. No limitation can be read in the power of the Central Government under Section 4(2). Whenever any dispute arises regarding an election, Central Government is entitled to take a decision. The word "decision" used in sub-section (2) of Section 4 cannot be read with any limitation or constraint. In case the submission of petitioner's counsel is accepted that before enforcement of Rule 25, no election could have been annulled by the Central Government, the very object and purpose of enacting sub-section (2) of Section 4 shall be frustrated. The Act was enacted in the year 1970 and Rule 25 has been enforced only on 15.03.2012. The Central Government cannot be said to have no power to declare the election void under Section 4(2) prior to enforcement of Rule 25. The wide power given to the Central Government under Section 4(2) are not limited and are not dependent on Rule 25. We are, thus, of the view that even when Rule 25 was not enacted, Central Government had ample power to annul an election in exercise of the power under Section 4 (2). 14. The wide power given to the Central Government under Section 4(2) are not limited and are not dependent on Rule 25. We are, thus, of the view that even when Rule 25 was not enacted, Central Government had ample power to annul an election in exercise of the power under Section 4 (2). 14. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is assumed that Central Government has power to declare an election void, the said power can be exercised only on the ground as given in Rule 25. Rule 25 as quoted above provides that Central Government may, on any election dispute referred to it under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, for an election, within a period of thirty days from the date of election of the elected candidate, declare the election to be void on account of bribery, undue influence or other corrupt exercise by which free and fair conduct of election has been interfered with. The power under Rule 25, thus, is limited on three grounds, i.e. on account of bribery, undue influence or corrupt exercise. Rule 25 contains the provision of limitation also which provides the period of thirty days from the date of election. Rule 25, thus, has to be interpreted to mean, if any election is sought to be challenged on the grounds mentioned therein, there has to be a challenge within thirty days. This provision shall be applicable from the date of its enforcement, i.e. 15.03.2012. But, can power of the Central Government to declare an election void under Section 4(2) can be curtailed only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 25 is a question to be answered. It is well settled principle of statutory interpretation that provisions of the Rule framed under the enactment as well as provisions of the Act should be harmoniously construed to give effect to the provisions of the Rules as well as the provisions of main enactment. 15. Reading of Rule 25 as well as Section 4(2), it is clear that challenge has to be laid within thirty days for setting aside an election on the ground of bribery, undue influence or corrupt exercise. 15. Reading of Rule 25 as well as Section 4(2), it is clear that challenge has to be laid within thirty days for setting aside an election on the ground of bribery, undue influence or corrupt exercise. The power under Section 4(2) on the above grounds has to be exercised within thirty days because the provisions of Section 4(2) and Rule 25, both have to be given its full meaning and purpose. It is relevant to note that Rule 25 confines only to three grounds and it does not apply in a situation where challenge to an election is on the ground that nomination has been wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted. This can be explained by taking an illustration. A person who is not included in the State Register or even not a medical practitioner in the system of medicine is elected as a member to the Central Council of Indian Medicine, by wrongly accepting his nomination. Whether Central Government shall have no power under Section 4(2) to set aside the election because its power is to be read as limited to the grounds given in Rule 25. The answer obviously is that power of the Central Government cannot be limited in the above manner. Central Government shall have ample power under Section 4(2) to set aside the said election and Rule 25 cannot control the power given to the Central Government under Section 4(2). 16. In the present case, election of the petitioner has been set aside on the ground that nomination of respondent No.5 was wrongly rejected. Rule 25 in no manner can control the said field. Hence, we reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Central Government can exercise its power to declare an election void only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 25. Rule 25 cannot be said to contain all the grounds on which Central Government can exercise its power under Section 4(2). Thus, we do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. Now, we come to the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instructions contained in the nomination paper as well as in Form I are statutory in nature. Thus, we do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. Now, we come to the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instructions contained in the nomination paper as well as in Form I are statutory in nature. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another ( (2014) 5 SCC 312 ). Form I of 1975 Rules is nomination paper which is to be obtained from the Returning Officer as referred to in Rule 8. In the bottom of the nomination paper under the heading "Instructions" two instructions are provided, which are as follows: "1. Nomination papers which are not received by the Returning Officer before 4.00 p.m. on the 17th May 2011 shall be rejected. 2. The names of the proposer and seconder, as they appear in the State Register of Indian Medicine their registered qualifications should be clearly written below their respective signatures." 18. As noted above, in the present case, nomination of the fifth respondent has been rejected on 18.05.2011 by the Returning Officer by passing the following order: "This nomination is objected by almost all persons present in the scrutiny. The qualifications mentioned by the candidate is not seen included in the copy of the State Register posted by the Registrar. The names and qualifications of the proposer and the seconder are not mentioned in the nomination paper, though the 'Form I Nomination paper' contains specific instructions to mention the same. Therefore the genuineness of the signature of the proposer and the seconder could not be ascertained: Hence the nomination is rejected under rule 11(2)(d) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules 1975." The above order indicates that two grounds were taken by the Returning Officer for rejecting the nomination. First ground is that the qualification mentioned by the candidate is not seen included in the copy of State Register posted by the Registrar and. second ground is that names and qualifications of the proposer and the seconder are not mentioned in the nomination paper, whereas there are specific instructions in Form I nomination paper. First ground is that the qualification mentioned by the candidate is not seen included in the copy of State Register posted by the Registrar and. second ground is that names and qualifications of the proposer and the seconder are not mentioned in the nomination paper, whereas there are specific instructions in Form I nomination paper. From the above, he concludes that genuineness of the signatures of the proposer and seconder could not be ascertained, hence nomination is rejected under Rule 11(2)(d) of 1975 Rules. Thus, rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent was under Rule 11(2)(d), i.e. "signature of the candidate or the proposer or the seconder on the nomination paper is not genuine". In so far as first ground, which is mentioned in the order that qualification mentioned by the candidate, i.e. fifth respondent, is not seen in the copy of the State Register posted by the Registrar, fifth respondent has mentioned his qualification as M.D. (Siddha), whereas in the State Register, his qualification was mentioned as BSMS. A candidate who has acquired qualification as MD, obviously, he must be having BSMS qualification which is an essential qualification for a person to pursue M.D. course. However, said ground has neither been pressed any further by the petitioner even before the Central Government or before this Court and rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent is supported only on the ground that proposer and seconder have not written their names and qualifications in the nomination paper. The instructions which are given in the bottom of Form I are statutory instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on Arikala Narasa Reddy's case (supra). 19. The proposer and seconder have signed in the respective columns and have mentioned their registration numbers in respective columns. In pursuance of order dated 16.07.2014 passed in this appeal, an affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, in which affidavit, with regard to registration number of proposer and seconder, following has been stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit: "A perusal of Ext-P8, the nomination paper of the 5th respondent, reveals that in Column No.8 thereof, the registration number of the Proposer is written as 196. Registration No.196 as per Ext-R5(E) list is Arun B.Raj which corresponds to the entries in Book No.II. In Column No. 10 of Ext-P8, the registration number of the Seconder is written as 203. Registration No.196 as per Ext-R5(E) list is Arun B.Raj which corresponds to the entries in Book No.II. In Column No. 10 of Ext-P8, the registration number of the Seconder is written as 203. However, Reg.No.203 is not seen included in Ext-R5(E) list. The entries in Book No.II reveals that Reg.No.203 is Dr.Mel Gibson, who's registration number is erroneously shown as 202 (Sl.No.197) in Ext- R5(E). It is submitted that the registers containing the registration particulars of 'A' class Sidha practitioners (Book Nos.I & II) does not contain the signatures of the persons who are registered with the 3rd respondent Councils." 19A. Whether only due to non writing of names and qualifications of the proposer and seconder a nomination deserves to be rejected is a. question to be answered. As noted above, proposer and seconder both have mentioned their registration numbers as in the State Register, which fact is on record. The order passed by the Returning Officer as quoted above clearly indicates that Returning Officer has looked into the State Register since he made observation that qualification of the fifth respondent as mentioned in the nomination paper is not seen included in the copy of the State Register. There being registration numbers of both proposer and seconder written in the nomination paper, names could have been easily looked into and found out from the State Register. The Returning Officer could have very well enquired about the names of proposer and seconder from the petitioner also. The Returning Officer has rejected the nomination of the fifth respondent exercising the power under Section 11(2)(d) of 1975 Rules. The said Rule provides for power of the Returning Officer to reject the nomination if signature of the candidate or proposer or seconder in the nomination paper is not genuine. Whether from the mere fact that proposer and seconder have not written their full names as prescribed in the instructions, their signatures can be said to be not genuine is the issue to be answered. 20. The word "genuine" has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: "Truly what it is said to be; authentic, sincere; honest." The word "genuine" has been defined in Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, which is to the following effect: "Not spurious or counterfeit, belonging to, derived from or descended from the original source or stock; authentic, typical; pure." 21. The power under Rule 11(2)(d) for rejecting a nomination has to be exercised by the Returning Officer on being satisfied that the signature of the proposer or seconder "are not genuine". If the proposer and seconder who had signed in the nomination paper claiming to be Siddha practitioners are not the persons included in the State Register, their signatures can be said to be not genuine. The said register being available with the Returning Officer, he could have very well ascertained the names of the proposer and seconder when the registration numbers of the proposer and seconder were given in the nomination paper. It is not the case taken by the petitioner that two medical practitioners, i.e. Dr.Arun B.Raj and Dr.Melgibson who had signed in the nomination paper as proposer and seconder are not medical practitioners or their names were not registered. It is not the case of anyone that someone has forged their signatures. Petitioner's case before the Central Government as well as before this Court is that since names and qualifications of the proposer and seconder were not written in the nomination paper, nomination of the fifth respondent has been rightly rejected. From the order which has been passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination, it is clear that he had only observed that "names and qualifications of proposer and seconder are not mentioned in the nomination paper though Form I nomination paper contains specific instructions to mention the same. Therefore, genuineness of the signature of the proposer and seconder could -not be ascertained". The said observation or opinion cannot be said to be an opinion holding that signatures are not genuine, as the statutory provisions provide for rejection of the nomination only when signatures are found not genuine, merely because names are not mentioned in the nomination paper, it cannot be said that signatures are not genuine. Further, Rule 11(2)(d) obliges the Returning officer to examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary. When the statute contemplates summary enquiry to be held, the Returning Officer has to satisfy with regard to the grounds given in Rule 11(2)(d) that signatures were not genuine and only on arriving at such satisfaction, he could have rejected the nomination. When the statute contemplates summary enquiry to be held, the Returning Officer has to satisfy with regard to the grounds given in Rule 11(2)(d) that signatures were not genuine and only on arriving at such satisfaction, he could have rejected the nomination. As observed above, on enquiry from the petitioner or fifth respondent or looking into the State Register, names and qualifications of proposer and seconder could have been ascertained. There is no case that any one has doubted the signatures which were made in the nomination paper. 22. The enquiry officer, who was directed by the Central Government to conduct enquiry after looking into all materials before him, has also recorded his conclusions in paragraph 11. It is relevant to refer to the observations of the enquiry officer in this context, which is to the following effect: "After hearing both the parties and going through the documents filed by them, the findings of the Inquiry Officer are as follows: (i) xxxxxxxxxx (ii) As regards the genuineness of the signatures of the proposer and the seconder, the Election Rules do not specify any checks to be adopted by RO. RO could have, in the principle of natural justice, easily verified the details of the proposer and seconder from the list available with him. Further it is noted that the State list does not bear the signatures of the practitioners. Mere writing of names under the signature could not be construed as a criterion for verifying the genuineness of the signature. Even in financial institutions like Banks, the signatories are asked to sign again in the presence of the authority, in order to ensure the genuineness of the signature. The Returning Officer could have adopted the same procedure and asked the proposer and the seconder to sign again on the nomination paper. ' (iii) Even though there are clear instructions regarding the entry of the names of the proposer and seconder, as they appear in the State Register of Indian Medicine and their registered qualifications in the nomination paper, Rule 9 and Rule 11 of IMCC (Election) Rules, 1975 dealing with the nomination papers, are silent about this. ' (iii) Even though there are clear instructions regarding the entry of the names of the proposer and seconder, as they appear in the State Register of Indian Medicine and their registered qualifications in the nomination paper, Rule 9 and Rule 11 of IMCC (Election) Rules, 1975 dealing with the nomination papers, are silent about this. However, since the Register of the Siddha practitioners in the State of Kerala comprises of only 286 (as per the list dated 20.4.2011 given by the Complainant Dr.Vijayakumar) or 288 names (as per the list dated 2.5.2012 given by Dr.Stanley Jones) and since the proposer and the seconder have given their registration nos. the Returning Officer could have easily checked up their names to ascertain their genuineness. (iv) to (vi) xxxxxxxxxx (vii) On perusal of the copy of judgment, submitted by Dr.Vijayakumar as a supporting document, it is observed that the Apex court has held that the defect, arising out of the fact that columns No.2 and 5 were not properly filled, was not of a 'substantial character', as the Returning Officer had no difficulty in checking that the proposer and the candidate were voters on the electoral rolls. The Apex Court has laid down the law, observing that the mistake/defect, if any, in the nomination paper, unless of a substantial character, cannot be a ground for rejecting the nomination paper. The above observations of the Apex Court are equally applicable in the instant case, as the mistake/defect on which the nomination paper was rejected, is not of substantial character and hence cannot be held as a ground for rejecting nomination paper." 23. One more fact, which has been noted by the enquiry officer as well as Central Government, has to be noted. Both the above authorities have noted that there was discrepancy in the name of father of the petitioner and in spite of the discrepancy, his nomination was accepted, whereas, pointing out non mentioning of names and qualifications of the proposer and seconder in the nomination paper, nomination of the fifth respondent was rejected. The object of 1975 Rules, specially of Rule 11 is that the Returning Officer should be satisfied that the person who is offering himself for nomination and his proposer and seconder are all persons included in the State Register and it is them who are coming forward for signing the nomination paper and proposing and seconding the name. The object of 1975 Rules, specially of Rule 11 is that the Returning Officer should be satisfied that the person who is offering himself for nomination and his proposer and seconder are all persons included in the State Register and it is them who are coming forward for signing the nomination paper and proposing and seconding the name. This is to ensure the purity of election and to ward of impersonation and forgery, etc. The power exercised by the Returning Officer has to be in consonance with the aforesaid object. We are of the view that the Returning Officer could have rejected the nomination only when he was satisfied that signatures of the proposer and seconder in the nomination paper were not genuine. The Returning Officer, without discharging the statutory obligation of satisfying himself about the grounds which could have been utilised for rejection of the nomination, has proceeded to reject the nomination of the fifth respondent and Central Government has rightly set aside the order. 24. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent in Rangilal Choudhury v. Dahu Sad and others ( AIR 1962 SC 1248 ) also fully support his contention. The Apex Court was considering a case where for a general election of Bihar Assembly constituency, there was an error in the nomination paper. In the said case, the proposer, instead of putting down the name of Constituency put the name of Bihar. There was obviously an error committed by the proposer. The Apex Court, noticing the error, made the following observations: "In the particular form with which we are concerned now the name of the candidate was rightly filled in but the proposer instead of putting down the name of the constituency, namely Dhanbad, put down the name Bihar there. So the proposal read as if the candidate was being nominated for the Bihar Assembly Constituency. The only objection taken before the returning officer was that the proposer had not mentioned the constituency for which he was proposing the candidate for election and therefore the nomination form was defective and should be rejected. So the proposal read as if the candidate was being nominated for the Bihar Assembly Constituency. The only objection taken before the returning officer was that the proposer had not mentioned the constituency for which he was proposing the candidate for election and therefore the nomination form was defective and should be rejected. The result of these provisions is that the proposer and the candidate are expected to file the nomination papers complete in all respects in accordance with the prescribed form; but even if there is some defect in the nomination paper in regard to either the names or the electoral roll numbers, it is the duty of the returning officer to satisfy himself at the time of presentation of the nomination paper about them and if necessary to allow them to be corrected, in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral roll. Thereafter on scrutiny the returning officer has the power to reject the nomination paper on the ground of failure to comply with any of the provisions of S.33 subject however to this that no nomination paper shall be rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character." The Apex Court held that the error was not of substantial character and the Returning Officer committed error in rejecting the nomination. Following was observed in paragraph 5; which is to the following effect: "We therefore agree with the High Court that in the circumstances of this case the defects in columns 2 and 5 were of an unsubstantial character and the rejection of the nomination paper cannot be upheld on this further ground, which was not even urged before the returning officer." 25. In the present case, we are fully satisfied that no error has been committed by the learned single Judge in upholding the order of the Central Government stating that nomination of the fifth respondent was wrongly rejected. 26. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice in hearing conducted by the enquiry officer has to be considered. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that enquiry officer called the fifth respondent on 10.04.2012 for hearing and petitioner was called by notice dated 25.04.2012 to appear on 04.05.2012. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that enquiry officer called the fifth respondent on 10.04.2012 for hearing and petitioner was called by notice dated 25.04.2012 to appear on 04.05.2012. It is submitted that principles of natural justice has been violated since petitioner was not called on the earlier date, i.e. * 10.04.2012 when fifth respondent appeared. 27. In the 1975 Rules, no procedure was prescribed for conducting hearing or enquiry. For the first time, 1975 Rules were amended by inserting Rule 28 with effect from 18.05.2012 which provided for detailed procedure for appointment of enquiry officer and for conduct of hearing. As noted above, Central Government has taken a decision in exercise of its power under Section 4(2) in passing the impugned order. Central Government had appointed the enquiry officer to examine the complaint submitted by the fifth respondent that his nomination has been wrongly rejected. From the report of the enquiry officer, it does appear that fifth respondent as well as the Returning Officer were called to appear on 10.04.2012. As noted above, Central Government decided to consider the representation of the fifth respondent in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 23.03.2012. 10.04.2012 was the date fixed by the enquiry officer for appearance of the fifth respondent on which date fifth respondent filed a written statement and documents. The enquiry officer decided to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consequently notice dated 25.04.2012 was issued. It is useful to extract the contents of the notice dated 25.04.2012, which is to the following effect: "Whereas, Dr.V.B.Vijayakumar has filed a representation dated 7.9.2011 under Section 4(2) of the IMCC Act, 1970 against rejection of his nomination papers for the elections to CCIM from the State of Kerala in Siddha System. Whereas this Department has decided to reconsider the representation of Dr.Vijayakumar filed under Section 4(2) of IMCC Act, 1970. Now, therefore, in furtherance of the action, you are hereby called upon to appear in person before the undersigned on 04.05.2012-at 11.00 a.m., in IRCS Building, Red Cross Road, New Delhi. A copy of the aforesaid representation dated 07.09.2011 filed by Dr.Vijayakumar is sent herewith. You may be required to bring two copies of the written statement and explain the factual position, record your statement etc. A copy of the aforesaid representation dated 07.09.2011 filed by Dr.Vijayakumar is sent herewith. You may be required to bring two copies of the written statement and explain the factual position, record your statement etc. with respect to the Central Council of Indian Medicine elections in the State of Kerala at the time of hearing. You may bring necessary documentary evidence relied upon for the purpose of enquiry. It may please be noted that in case you do not attend the hearing at the stipulated time and date, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say and further action will be taken based on available records in terms of the IMCC Act and the relevant rules." Petitioner appeared in pursuance of the notice and was heard. Copy of the representation dated 07.09.2011 submitted by the fifth respondent was also sent to the petitioner along with the notice dated 25.04.2012. On the day when petitioner appeared, he did not make any request for cross-examination of the fifth respondent or for any further hearing in the matter. Petitioner filed his written statement on 04.05.2012. 28. The enquiry officer has given notice dated 25.04.2012 to the petitioner only because he intended to give an opportunity*to the petitioner to have his say on the claim submitted by respondent No.5 that his nomination has been wrongly rejected. Petitioner was given hearing on 04.05.2012 and no grievance was raised by the petitioner on the said date. The enquiry officer, after hearing the petitioner, has submitted a report. In the facts of the present case and sequence of events which took place, we are of the view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was given full opportunity to have his say on the written statement of the fifth respondent. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sulaikh'a Clay Mines v. Alpha Clays ( 2004 (3) KLT 192 ). In the said case, the Division Bench had an occasion to consider Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said case, the rejoinder submitted by the appellant was not given to either side. For oral hearing no notice was given to the parties. Notice of inspection was also not given to the parties. In the said case, the Division Bench had an occasion to consider Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said case, the rejoinder submitted by the appellant was not given to either side. For oral hearing no notice was given to the parties. Notice of inspection was also not given to the parties. Taking into consideration the facts of the said case, following was observed by the Division Bench in paragraph 4: "S.24(1) and (2) make it clear that in the absence of agreement it is for the arbitrator to decide whether oral hearings should be conducted or not. But, once it is decided to hold oral hearing, parties shall be given sufficient notice of hearing and of any meeting of the tribunal for the purpose of inspection of documents, books or other property. S.24(3) makes it compulsory that all statements and other information supplied to the arbitral tribunal by one party shall be communicated to the other party. In this case, admittedly, rejoinder submitted by the appellant was not given to the respondent and the rejoinder submitted by the respondent was not given to the appellant. Oral hearings were granted by the tribunal at the premises of the parties without notice to the other. Inspections were conducted without notice to both parties. Notes of inspections were also not given to the parties. Hearing of one party, in the absence of other, violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, apart from violation of S.24 (2) as notice of hearing was not given to the parties. It is not that one party did not appear after receiving notice. No notice of hearing was given to the other side when the arbitrator decided to hear opposite side in the residence or office of the respondent. So, each party was kept in dark regarding arguments forwarded by the other party. Even the rejoinder or the evidence collected from one side were kept secret from the other side. The evidence collected at the inspection were not disclosed even at the time of hearing. Before conducting the inspection in the presence of one party, the arbitral tribunal should have given notice to the other party." 30. Even the rejoinder or the evidence collected from one side were kept secret from the other side. The evidence collected at the inspection were not disclosed even at the time of hearing. Before conducting the inspection in the presence of one party, the arbitral tribunal should have given notice to the other party." 30. The Division Bench in the above case came to the conclusion that there was violation of principles of natural justice in view of several factors including non giving copy of the representation, non supplying the evidence of other parties and not giving notice of hearing. In the present case, representation was submitted by the fifth respondent and fifth respondent and Returning Officer were initially called by the enquiry officer to consider the representation. After considering the representation, the enquiry officer formed an opinion that petitioner is to be given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter notice of hearing was given. As noted above, copy of the representation submitted by the fifth respondent was also forwarded to the petitioner who had full opportunity to submit his evidence and place his case. . 31. Moreover, in the present case, challenge by the fifth respondent was to the rejection of his nomination by the Returning Officer. Rejection of nomination was made by a reasoned order which was already before the enquiry officer. Looking into the nature of issues which were raised before the Central Government, we are satisfied that no violation of principles of natural justice can be read in the facts of the present case. Thus, we are of the view that report of the enquiry officer and the consequential order of the Central Government cannot be faulted on the said ground. In any view of the matter, petitioner had full opportunity to place his case before the learned single Judge as well as before this appellate Bench. 32. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. It is relevant to note that learned single Judge has after holding that the order of rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent is illegal, directed the respondent to proceed with the election from the stage of acceptance of nomination of the petitioner and fifth respondent which was to be completed within a period of three months. It is relevant to note that learned single Judge has after holding that the order of rejection of nomination of the fifth respondent is illegal, directed the respondent to proceed with the election from the stage of acceptance of nomination of the petitioner and fifth respondent which was to be completed within a period of three months. Proceedings for election could not be held on account of the interim order passed in this appeal. In above view of the matter, we are of the view that now respondent shall complete the process of election within a period of three months from today from the stage of acceptance of nomination of the petitioner as well as fifth respondent. The order of the learned single Judge is, thus, confirmed. Subject to the directions as made above, this appeal is dismissed.