ORDER : The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to accept his candidature as an official and recognized candidate of the Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred as “INC”) and allot the recognized election symbol to contest the General Election of House of People from Indore – 26 Constituency. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. The Election Commission of India notified the General Election of House of People vide notification dated 16.03.2024 and issued an election program which is reproduced below: S.No. PROGRAM DATE 1. Issue of Notification 18.04.2024 2. Late Date of filing Nominations 25.04.2024 3. Scrutiny of Nominations 26.04.2024 4. Last date for withdrawal of Candidature 29.04.2024 5. Date of Poll 13.05.2024 6. Counting of Votes 04.06.2024 7. Date before which the election shall be completed 06.06.2024 3. The INC issued a form-A in favour of its State President on 21.03.2024 to issue a form-B in the names of an approved candidate as well as substitute candidate of INC. Shri Jitu Patwari, President M.P. National Congress Committee has issued a form-B in the name of respondent No.4 as an approved candidate and in the name of petitioner as substituted candidate. The respondent No.4 and petitioner both submitted their nomination form on or before 25.04.2024. On 20.06.2024 all the forms were scrutinized by respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground, firstly, that the form of approved candidate has been accepted and 10 candidates have not signed as proposer his name. The petitioner did not object to the aforesaid rejection of his candidature. 4. On 29.04.2024 the respondent No.4 being an approved candidate has withdrawn his nomination form to contest the Parliamentary Election. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation to declare him approved candidate and allot an official symbol of INC. Now the petitioner is before this Court seeking following relief: 7.1. That, the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to accept the candidature of the petitioner as an official and recognized candidate of Indian National Congress by allotting the recognized election symbol of INC to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to contest the ensuing general election of the House of People from Indore-26 constituency; 7.2. That, the respondent no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to accept the candidature of the petitioner as an official and recognized candidate of Indian National Congress by allotting the recognized election symbol of INC to the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to contest the ensuing general election of the House of People from Indore-26 constituency; 7.2. That, the respondent no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 29.04.2024 filed by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order thereon; 7.3. That, the cost of the present writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioner and any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may consider appropriate, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 1951”) that a candidate not set up by recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from the constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by 10 proposers being elector of the constituency, therefore, action of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination his nomination on 25.04.2024 may be correct because at that time the petitioner was not approved candidate of the INC as his form was not signed by 10 proposers but in view of Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 36 of Act of 1951, the Returning Officer ought to have given one day time to the petitioner to get 10 approver and examine the nomination form next day. 6. Shri Khandelwal, learned counsel further submits that as per form-B, there are 2 stages on which the substitute candidate can be stepped into the shoe of approved candidate firstly, on the approved candidate nomination being rejected on scrutiny or on withdrawing from the contest, therefore, if at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination paper, the nomination form of respondent No.4 was accepted, therefore, at this stage there was no occasion for the petitioner to become an approved candidate but at the second stage when the respondent No.4 withdrew his candidature, the form of the petitioner should have been scrutinized and accepted to contest the election. 7. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is also devoid of merit. 7. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is also devoid of merit. On 25.04.2024 the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected by the Returning Officer treating him to be a substitute candidate because the form of approved candidate was accepted and, secondly, the nomination form of the petitioner was not subscribed by 10 approvers. The petitioner did not raise any objection as per Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 36 of Act of 1951 which says that in case the objection raised by the Returning Officer or made by any other person, the candidate concerned may be allowed the time to rebut. Therefore, the candidate concerned should seek time to rebut then only the Returning Officer would be obliged to take up the nomination form for scrutiny one following on the next date. The petitioner accepted its rejection of nomination and did not raise any objection. Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 36 of Act of 1951 is reproduced below: “Provided that in case [an objection is raised by the returning officer or is made by any other person] the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned.” 8. So far as Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 33 is concerned, the word “candidate” is used in it which is in a singular form, it means the recognized party can approve only one candidate who is not required to get his form subscribed by 10 proposers and rest all the candidate including substitute candidate is required to submit the nomination forms, with signatures of 10 proposers. As admitted by Shri Khandelwal, the form of petitioner was rightly rejected because it was not signed by 10 proposers. Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 33 is reproduced below: “Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.” 9. Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 33 is reproduced below: “Provided that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency.” 9. Shri Khandelwal, has argued that at second stage when respondent No.4 withdrew his form, the petitioner should have been treated as approved candidate is also not acceptable because as the petitioner has not carefully read the condition No.(ii) of the form-B which says that the person whose particulars are mentioned in column No.5 to 7 below in the substitute candidate of the party who will step in the approved candidates nomination being rejected on scrutiny or on his withdrawal from the contest if substitute candidate is still a contesting candidate at the ensuring general / bye-election from the constituency. In column 5 also it is mentioned that on his approved candidate withdrawing from the nomination paper of substitute candidate is accepted on scrutiny as an independent candidate and he is still a contesting candidate, therefore, the petitioner is no more candidate contesting the election due to rejection of his form on 25.04.2024. The condition No.(ii) of the form-B is reproduced below: “(ii) The person whose particulars are mentioned in columns (5) to (7) below is the substitute candidate of the party, who will step-in on the approved candidate’s nomination being rejected on scrutiny or on his withdrawing from the contest, if the substitute candidate is still a contesting candidate, at the ensuing general/bye election from this constituency.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has referred the clause 6.10.3 (ii) and 7 of handbook for Returning Officer published by Election Commission of India according to which the nomination paper of the substitute candidate of the recognized party only one proposer will be accepted if the nomination paper of main approved candidate of the recognized political party will be rejected if the nomination paper of main approved candidate of recognized party is accepted however, if such substitute candidate has also filed part II of the nomination paper with 10 proposer or filled another nomination form and it is subscribed by 10 elector proposer, his nomination paper will be scrutinized independently by treating the candidate as an independent candidate. If the nomination paper of main approved candidate of the party is rejected then the substitute candidate will be treated as the candidate of the party provided the party has already intimated his name as a substitute candidate. Therefore, being a substitute candidate the petitioner was required to submit a form with a signature of 10 proposer and if his form is signed by only one proposer and on acceptance of the form of approved candidate, the form of substitute candidate is liable to be rejected. Clause (vii) is reproduced below: The nomination paper of a substitute candidate of a recognized political party signed by only one proposer will be rejected if the nomination paper of the main approved candidate of that recognized political party is accepted. However, if such substitute candidate has also filled Part II of the nomination paper with ten proposers or filed another nomination paper and it is subscribed by ten electors as proposers, his nomination paper(s) will be scrutinized independently by treating the candidate as an independent candidate. Further, if the nomination paper of the main approved candidate of the party is rejected, then the substitute candidate will be treated as the candidate of the party, provided that the party has already intimated his name as its substitute candidate in Form 'A' and 'B' filed before 3 pm on the last date for making nominations. [N.B. It must be noted that a State Party, which is recognized in some other State/Union Territory but is not recognized as such in Returning Officer's State/Union Territory, such party should be treated as unrecognized party by Returning Officer, even if it has been allowed by the Commission to use its reserved symbol in his/her constituency under the Election Symbols Order, 1968.] 11. To meet out this type of situation, the clarification has been issued in the handbook that the substitute candidate has to file part II of the nomination paper with 10 proposers or filled another nomination form as an independent candidate. 12. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.