ORDER : 1. Against the order in C.M.A.No.43 of 2017 of Additional District Court-VII, Ernakulam in Election (OP) No.11/2015 of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, the petitioner came up with this revision. 2. The election of a returned candidate in a ward in Varapetty Grama Panchayat was under challenge in Election (OP) No.11/2015 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, on the ground that there is non compliance of requirement under Section 52(6) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The election petition was allowed by the learned Munsiff and set aside the election of the returned candidate. It was reversed by the appellate court in C.M.A.No.43/2017 which is under challenge in this revision. 3. The only ground raised is the non-compliance of the requirement under Section 52(6) of the Act that instead of three nomination papers, four nomination papers were submitted which were improperly accepted by the returning officer. 4. The question came up for consideration is whether the submission of more than three nomination papers would vitiate the election of returned candidate and what would be the effect of non compliance of requirement under Section 52(6) of the Act and whether the acceptance of four nominations instead of three would be a substantial defect warranting rejection of nomination under Section 55 of the Act. 5. A short reference to Section 52(6) and Section 55(2),(3) and (4) of the Act is necessary to resolve the issue. 6. Section 52(6) of the Act is extracted below for reference: “52(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper. Provided that not more than three nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the returning officer.” 7. Section 55(2),(3) and (4) of the Act is also relevant, hence extracted below for reference. “55. Scrutiny of nominations - (1)..... Provided that not more than three nomination papers shall be presented by or on behalf of any candidate or accepted by the returning officer.” 7. Section 55(2),(3) and (4) of the Act is also relevant, hence extracted below for reference. “55. Scrutiny of nominations - (1)..... (2) The returning officer shall then 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 on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations, the candidate is either not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the provisions of this Act; (b) that there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 52 or Section 53; or (c) if he is satisfied that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine. (3) Nothing contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination of any candidate on the ground of any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by means of another nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed. (4) The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature.” 8. A mere irregularity in respect of a nomination paper or a defect which is not substantial in nature shall not be a ground for rejection of nomination paper. What is material is the non compliance of a substantial requirement. Sub Sections (2) and (3) of the Act is well clear that it is not permissible to reject a nomination paper merely on any irregularity or a defect which is not substantial in nature. Submission of four nominations instead of three is only an irregularity and it will not cause any substantial defect either in the acceptance of nomination or in the conduct of election. 9. Submission of four nominations instead of three is only an irregularity and it will not cause any substantial defect either in the acceptance of nomination or in the conduct of election. 9. Somewhat the very same issue was came up before the High Court of Andra Pradesh in Dadi Veerahadra Rao v. Returning Officer, Anakappallil Legislative Assembly Constituency and others (2005 KHC 5146) wherein instead of four nominations, five nominations were submitted and it was held that one of the nominations has to be treated as deemed to be rejected. 10. Proviso to Section 52(6) of the Act says that the returning officer shall not accept more than three nominations presented by or on behalf of any candidate which casts a duty on the returning officer to accept only three nominations. Hence, the rationale applied in the above said decision that one of the nominations has to be treated as deemed to be rejected can safely be applied in the instant case. Hence, revision fails, dismissed. No costs.