ORDER : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. 1.Respondent No.4/Returned Candidate has filed an application (I.A. No. 02/2024) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act, 1951') for dismissal of the election petition. 2.The facts of the present case are that the Second Phase of the General Election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Chhattisgarh was notified on 21st October, 2023. The last date for submission of the nomination form was 30th October, 2023. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was 31st October, 2023. 02nd November, 2023 was scheduled for withdrawal of nomination papers. The date of the Poll was 17th November, 2023 and the date of counting was 03rd December, 2023. The election petitioner is a voter for Legislative Assembly, Constituency Circle No. 11, Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh and his name is mentioned at Serial No. 627, Epic No. MP/12/096/144354. He filed his nomination paper as an independent candidate for Legislative Assembly, Circle No. 10 Ambikapur, District Surguja on the last date of nomination i.e. 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM and the receipt in this regard was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that he was asked by the Returning Officer to produce two proposers as the names of two proposers were missing from the nomination paper, but when he came along with two proposers, he was restrained from entering the office of the Returning Officer and later on, it was informed that there was no discrepancy with regard to proposers. On 30.10.2023 at about 05:15 pm, the Returning Officer issued a checklist raising certain objections in the nomination form. The mistakes were - (i) the name and number of State Legislative Constituency in Part 'B' point No. 3 were left blank; (ii) the election circle was not mentioned in Form 26; (iii) social media details were not given; (iv) details with regard to criminal cases were not mentioned; (v) status of government accommodation was not mentioned; (vi) details about government vehicles were not given and (vii) there was no declaration with regard to the photograph of election petitioner, and photograph and the name of election agent was also not mentioned. It is further pleaded that the petitioner approached the Returning Officer to rectify those mistakes, but he was not permitted to rectify the same and at the time of scrutiny, his nomination paper was rejected on 31.10.2023. It is mentioned in the rejection order that a notice was issued to the petitioner to rectify the mistakes or to submit a fresh affidavit, but he failed to submit a fresh affidavit and the defects are of a substantial nature, therefore, the nomination paper is rejected. 3.It is further pleaded by the petitioner that on 31.10.2023 at 11:10 am, the petitioner approached the Returning Officer to rectify the mistakes, but he was not permitted. It is pleaded that the petitioner made representations/complaints through e-mail to the respondent authorities on 30.10.2023; 31.10.2023 and 03.11.2023 for redressal of his grievances, but no heed was paid. It is also pleaded that Writ Petition (C) No. 4866/2023 was filed challenging the rejection of the nomination paper and said petition was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 10.11.2023. The election petitioner further pleaded that he collected documents under the Right to Information Act and thereafter filed this election petition on 16.01.2024 within limitation along with a security deposit of Rs.2,000/-. 4.Notices were issued to the respondents including returned candidate/respondent No. 4. An application has been filed by the returned candidate under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 86 of the Act, 1951 for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the election petitioner submitted his nomination paper on the last date i.e. 30.10.2023 at 02:30 pm just half an hour prior to the closing time. The Returning Officer pointed out certain defects in the nomination paper, which were required to be cured before scrutiny of the nomination paper and in this regard, a notice was issued to the election petitioner on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 pm. It is also stated that the scrutiny of the nomination paper started on 31.10.2023 at 10 am, but prior to that the election petitioner failed to rectify the defects in the nomination paper. It is pleaded that the election petitioner failed to mention the name and number of State Legislative Constituency; social media details; details of criminal cases; details about government accommodation; details with respect to government vehicles and Part 'B' point No. 3 was also left blank. It is pleaded that the election petitioner failed to mention the name and number of State Legislative Constituency; social media details; details of criminal cases; details about government accommodation; details with respect to government vehicles and Part 'B' point No. 3 was also left blank. It is pleaded that according to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, 1951, the defects were of a substantial nature and those defects were not rectified by the election petitioner despite notice, therefore, the nomination paper was rightly rejected. 5. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the returned candidate/respondent No. 4, would argue that according to the provisions of Section 36 (2) (b) of the Act 1951, the Returning Officer may reject a nomination on the ground that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Sections 33 of the Act, 1951. He would further argue that Section 33 (1) of the Act, 1951 provides that a nomination has to be presented after being completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by elector/electors of the Constituency as proposer/proposers. He would also argue that this requirement is mandatory. He would submit that Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951 clearly contemplates that where the defect is of a substantial character, the Returning Officer is not enjoined to have it rectified, but has to reject the nomination paper. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari would further submit that the candidate was required to rectify the mistakes prior to the scrutiny of the nomination paper. He would also submit that the election petitioner submitted his nomination paper on 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM. The Returning Officer pointed out certain defects in the nomination paper and a notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 PM to rectify those defects. He would further contend that on 30.10.2023 an oath was taken at 05:40 PM by the petitioner before the Returning Officer and he was present in the office of Returning Officer. He would also contend that the notice with regard to defects was duly received by the petitioner and there is acknowledgment in this regard. He would further contend that on 30.10.2023 an oath was taken at 05:40 PM by the petitioner before the Returning Officer and he was present in the office of Returning Officer. He would also contend that the notice with regard to defects was duly received by the petitioner and there is acknowledgment in this regard. With regard to representations, he would state that the first application was moved on 31.10.2023 at 11:10 am before the Returning Officer to rectify the defects pointed out in the nomination paper whereas scrutiny was started at 10:00 AM on 31.10.2023 and, therefore, it was not permissible for Returning Officer to permit the petitioner to rectify the defects. He would further state that the application moved by the petitioner dated 30.10.2023 at 08:15 PM for rectification of the mistakes in the nomination paper does not contain any mark of receipt. He would also state that if it was sent through e-mail, there is no such endorsement. He would further contend that a letter was sent through e-mail on 03.11.2023 at 07:30 PM to the Returning Officer and it was moved after the rejection of the nomination paper. Thus, the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps with regard to rectification of defects of substantial character in the nomination paper and, therefore, his nomination was rightly rejected. He vehemently argued that the petitioner failed to disclose a triable cause of action and also failed to point out any material with respect to the improper rejection of his nomination paper which would render the declaration of election void as per Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act, 1951. In support of elaborative arguments, Mr. Shalvik Tiwari has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prahladdas Khandelwal Vs. Narendra Kumar Salave reported in (1973) 3 SCC 104 . 6.On the other hand, the Election Petitioner would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shalvik Tiwari. He would submit that the nomination paper of the petitioner was deliberately rejected by the Returning Officer. He would further submit that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to rectify the mistakes and he was restrained from entering into the office of Returning Officer. He would also submit that the nomination paper was submitted on 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM as an independent candidate for Legislative Assembly, Circle No. 10, Ambikapur, District Surguja. He would further submit that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to rectify the mistakes and he was restrained from entering into the office of Returning Officer. He would also submit that the nomination paper was submitted on 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM as an independent candidate for Legislative Assembly, Circle No. 10, Ambikapur, District Surguja. He would contend that the petitioner was asked by the Returning Officer to bring two proposers and when he approached the Returning Officer along with two proposers, he was informed that there was no requirement to call two proposers. He would argue that a checklist raising certain objections was issued on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 PM, but he was not permitted to rectify those mistakes, therefore, his election petition cannot be dismissed on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 86 of the Act, 1951 and it is a matter of trial. He would further argue that on account of political influence, the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected and complaints were also made through e-mail before the respondent authorities. It is also contended that the election petition has been filed strictly in accordance with Sections 80, 80-A and 81 of the Act, 1951. He would pray to reject the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Section 86 of the Act, 1951. 7.Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Arvind Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 13 would support the contentions advanced by the Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents available on the record. 9.Section 30 of the Act, 1951 deals with the appointment of dates for nominations etc. This Section fixes the date for making nominations; the date of scrutiny of nominations; the date for the withdrawal of candidatures; the date or dates on which a poll shall be taken and the date before which the election shall be completed. 10.Section 33 of the Act, 1951 which is relevant deals with the presentation of the nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Section 36 deals with the scrutiny of nominations. Section 36 (2) describes the grounds for rejection of nomination paper. 10.Section 33 of the Act, 1951 which is relevant deals with the presentation of the nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Section 36 deals with the scrutiny of nominations. Section 36 (2) describes the grounds for rejection of nomination paper. Sections 33 and 36 of the Act, 1951 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “33.Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.--(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven o’clock in the forenoon and three o’clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under section 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer: 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: Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public holiday: Provided also that in the case of a local authorities’ constituency, graduates’ constituency or teachers’ constituency, the reference to “an elector of the constituency as proposer” shall be construed as a reference to ten per cent of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors, whichever is less, as proposers. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained is sub-section (1), for election to the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim (deemed to be the Legislative Assembly of that State only constituted under the (Constitution), the nomination paper to be delivered to the returning officer shall be in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the said nomination paper shall be subscribed by the candidate as assenting to the nomination, and-- (a)in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin, also by at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and twenty electors of the constituency as seconders; (b)in the case of a seat reserved for Sanghas, also by at least twenty electors of the constituency as proposers and at least twenty electors of the constituency as seconders; (c)in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Nepali origin, by an elector of the constituency as proposer: Provided further 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 or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State. (3) Where the candidate is a person who, having held any office referred to in section 9 has been dismissed and a period of five 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 a nomination paper, the returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate 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, 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, 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, technical or printing error to be corrected and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical, technical or printing error in the electoral roll in the nomination paper shall be overlooked. (5) Where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless it has been filed along with the nomination paper, be produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. (6) 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. (6) 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. (7) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election,– (a)in the case of a general election to the House of the People (whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies), from more than two Parliamentary constituencies; (b)in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies), from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State; (c)in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the State; (d)in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, for filling more than two such seats; (e)in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Parliamentary constituencies; (f)in the case of bye-elections to be Legislative Assembly of a State from two or more Assembly constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Assembly constituencies; (g)in the case of bye-elections to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, which are held simultaneously, for filling more than two such seats; (h)in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council from two or more Council constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Council constituencies. Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more bye-elections shall be deemed to be held simultaneously where the notification calling such bye-elections are issued by the Election Commission under sections 147, 149, 150 or, as the case may be, 151 on the same date. 36. Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more bye-elections shall be deemed to be held simultaneously where the notification calling such bye-elections are issued by the Election Commission under sections 147, 149, 150 or, as the case may be, 151 on the same date. 36. Scrutiny of nomination.–(1) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under Section 30, the candidates, their election agents, one proposer of each candidate, and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate but no other person, may attend at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint; and the returning officer shall give them all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in section 33. (2)The returning officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objection 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:– (a)that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely: Article 84, 102, 173 and 191. Part II of this Act, and sections 4 and 14 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963; or (b)that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of section 33 or section 34; or (c)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 character. (4)The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. 5)The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control: 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. (6)The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (7)For the purposes of this section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). (8)Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a list of validly nominated candidates, that is to say, candidates whose nominations have been found valid and affix it to his notice board.” 11. Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961') talks about nomination papers. Rule 4A of the Rules, 1961 deals with the form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering the nomination paper. Both the Rules are relevant and are reproduced herein below:- “4. Nomination paper. Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961') talks about nomination papers. Rule 4A of the Rules, 1961 deals with the form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering the nomination paper. Both the Rules are relevant and are reproduced herein below:- “4. Nomination paper. --Every nomination paper presented under sub-section (1) of section 33 shall be completed in such one of the Forms 2A to 2E as may be appropriate: Provided that a failure to complete or defect in completing, the declaration as to symbols in a nomination paper in Form 2A or Form 2B shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 36 4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper.--The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.” 12.A bare reading of Rules 4 and 4A of the Rules, 1961 makes it clear that the nomination paper presented under Section 33 (1) of the Act, 1951 would be completed in accordance with Forms 2A to 2E and failure to complete or defect in completing the declaration as to symbols in a nomination paper in Form 2A or Form 2B shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act, 1951, meaning thereby except non-disclosure of symbols in the nomination paper in Form 2A or Form 2B, other defects would be of a substantial character. According to Rule 4A of the Rules, 1961, a candidate has to submit an affidavit in Form 26. In this Rule, it is nowhere mentioned that the failure to fill up any part of the affidavit will not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character. Thus, it is mandatory to fill up all columns of Form No. 26 of the affidavit. 13. In the present case, the election petitioner submitted his nomination paper for State Legislative Assembly, Circle No. 10, Ambikapur, District Surguja on 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM and admittedly it was the last date. Thus, it is mandatory to fill up all columns of Form No. 26 of the affidavit. 13. In the present case, the election petitioner submitted his nomination paper for State Legislative Assembly, Circle No. 10, Ambikapur, District Surguja on 30.10.2023 at 02:30 PM and admittedly it was the last date. The form was accepted by the Returning Officer and a receipt was also issued. A notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out certain defects in the nomination paper on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 PM and the same was received by the election petitioner. It appears that the petitioner failed to rectify the defects in the nomination paper prior to the beginning of scrutiny. The scrutiny of nomination papers was scheduled on 31.10.2023 from 10:00 AM. The defects pointed out by the Returning Officer are as under:- (i)name and number of State Legislative Constituency in Part 'B' point No. 3 was left blank; (ii)the election circle was not mentioned in Form 26; (iii)social media details were not mentioned; (iv)criminal cases were not disclosed/mentioned; (v)government accommodation was not mentioned; (vi)details about government vehicles were not given; and, (vii)there was no declaration with regard to photograph of the candidate and the photograph and name of the election agent. 14.The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on 31.10.2023 by the Returning Officer assigning reasons that a notice was issued to the candidate to rectify those defects before scrutiny, but he could not submit a fresh affidavit and the defects are of a substantial character, therefore, the nomination paper is rejected. 15.An oath was taken by the petitioner on 30.10.2023 at 05:40 PM and thus, he was present in the office of Returning Officer on 30.10.2023, but he failed to rectify the defects. The petitioner has annexed a copy of Form 26 along with the nomination paper. Form 26 which is on page No. 40 would show that the petitioner could not mention the name and number of the State Legislative Assembly. The Form is printed in the Hindi language, therefore, the election petitioner cannot take a stand that he could not follow the language used in Form 26. With regard to social media details and Cell numbers, the column has been left blank. At serial no. 05 With regard to pending criminal cases, the election petitioner has rightly stated that no criminal case is pending against him and rightly filled it with “No”. With regard to social media details and Cell numbers, the column has been left blank. At serial no. 05 With regard to pending criminal cases, the election petitioner has rightly stated that no criminal case is pending against him and rightly filled it with “No”. At serial no. 05(ii), he answered “Not Applicable” and in the chart, he mentioned “Nil”. At serial no. 06 criminal cases in which the candidate has been convicted, the petitioner has filled it with “Not Applicable” and again in the chart, he mentioned “Nil”. At serial no. 06 (d), he mentioned “Nil”. 16.In the opinion of this Court, with regard to criminal cases and pending cases, the petitioner has rightly filled the columns. At serial no. 8, where detail about government accommodation was sought, he mentioned “Nil” and it cannot be said that the election petitioner has left the column blank. In the same affidavit in Part II serial No. 03, the petitioner has left the column blank with regard to the name and number of the Legislative Assembly and State. 17. Section 36 of the Act, 1951 deals with the scrutiny of nomination papers. The nomination paper can be rejected on the grounds given in the Clauses (a), (b) and (c). The Returning Officer cannot reject nomination paper if the defect is not of a substantial character. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1961 says that failure to declare symbols in nomination paper in Form 2A or Form 2B will not be deemed to be a defect of substantial character. According to the provisions of Section 33(4) of the Act, 1951, the Returning Officer has to permit the candidate to correct the defects, to rectify any misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error with regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or nomination paper. At the same time Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951 states that where the defects are of substantial character, the Returning Officer is not enjoined to have it rectified and he has to reject that nomination paper. At the same time Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951 states that where the defects are of substantial character, the Returning Officer is not enjoined to have it rectified and he has to reject that nomination paper. 18.With regard to applications/representations made by the election petitioner to the Returning Officer and other respondent authorities, Annexure P/6 dated 30.10.2023 does not contain the mark of receipt; the application dated 03.11.2023 was sent through e-mail after the rejection of the nomination paper and thus, the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps for rectification of nomination paper within permissible time. The nomination paper of the election petitioner was rejected strictly in accordance with the law and the petitioner failed to plead and demonstrate any failure on the part of the Returning Officer or any other respondents, therefore, the contention made by the election petitioner that the election petition should not be dismissed on the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is not acceptable. 19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue wherein a candidate failed to state the name of Constituency in the nomination paper in the matter of Prahladdas Khandelwal (supra) in Paras- 7, 8, 10 and 12 held as under:- “7.Form 2-A as prescribed by the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, in English is as follows : “FORM 2-A I nominate as a candidate for election to the House of the People from the …………………….. Parliamentary Constituency. Candidates’ name ……………………………... His postal address ……………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………... His name is entered in S.No. ………………………….. in Part No. …………………………….. of the electoral roll or …………………………… (Assembly Constituency comprised within) ………………. Parliamentary Constituency. My name is ……………………………… and it is entered at S. No. …………………………… in Part No. ……… of the electoral rolls for …………………… (Assembly Constituency comprised within) ………………….. Parliamentary Constituency Date ………………. (Signature of Proposer). --------------------------------------------------------------- I, the abovementioned ……………………” The nomination form in Hindi used in the Mid-term Elections, 1971 begins with the word “Main” (I). Parliamentary Constituency. My name is ……………………………… and it is entered at S. No. …………………………… in Part No. ……… of the electoral rolls for …………………… (Assembly Constituency comprised within) ………………….. Parliamentary Constituency Date ………………. (Signature of Proposer). --------------------------------------------------------------- I, the abovementioned ……………………” The nomination form in Hindi used in the Mid-term Elections, 1971 begins with the word “Main” (I). Then there is a blank space which is followed by these words : ^^lnh; fuokZpu&{ks= ls yksd lHkk ds fuokZpu ds fy;s vH;FkhZ ds :i esa fuEufyf[kr dks uke fufnZ"V djrk gwaW %& vH;FkhZ dk uke &&&&&&&&&&&&& mldk Mkd irk &&&&&&&&& mldk uke &&&&&&&&&& lalnh; fuokZpu {ks= &&&&&&&&&&&- If the form were to be read in the same way as if it were in the English language an impression is likely to be created that after the word “I” the proposer has to fill in his own name as was actually done in the present case in Ex. P-2. But any one familiar with the Hindi language would not read it that way and the blank space in the context, it will be understood, is meant for filling in the name of the Parliamentary Constituency. If that is not done the name of the Constituency for which the candidate is being nominated cannot find any mention in the material part of the form. It could never be contemplated that the official translators who ware presumed to be fully conversant with the Hindi language would have translated the English form in such a way as to leave out the name of the Parliamentary Constituency altogether for which the candidate is being proposed. It may be mentioned that to an ordinary person a wrong impression may be conveyed that after the word “I” he has to give his own name but even if he gives his own name be can indicate the name of the Parliamentary Constituency thereafter which would make the form complete in every respect. It appears that the Election Commission of the India addressed a letter, Ext. R-4, to the Secretary, Official Languages Legislative Commission saying that the Hindi translation of Form 2-A appeared to be defective in some respects and it was suggested that in Paragraph 1 of the form as shown in Ext. R-5 after the word “Main” (I) in Hindi the name of the Parliamentary Constituency must be mentioned. R-4, to the Secretary, Official Languages Legislative Commission saying that the Hindi translation of Form 2-A appeared to be defective in some respects and it was suggested that in Paragraph 1 of the form as shown in Ext. R-5 after the word “Main” (I) in Hindi the name of the Parliamentary Constituency must be mentioned. Indeed it had been pointed out in a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Kashi Prasad v. Harigen Ram & Another, Election Petition No. 44 of 1267, decided on January 19, 1968 that the Hindi form might have caused some confusion as there also a similar defect appeared as in Ext. P-2 here and the name of the Constituency had not been mentioned. The court held that since the name of the Constituency was not mentioned the defect was of a substantial nature and the Returning Officer should have rejected the nomination paper. But as stated before it was pointedly mentioned that the Hindi form might have caused some confusion and the proposer would have been well advised in consulting some competent person before filling it in. Unfortunately it appears and that is supported by the evidence of Shri Komal Singh Returning Officer that the amendment proposed by the Election Commission of India was not given effect to although certain other amendments in the Form were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules. The appellant has not been able to show any error in the conclusion of the High Court that the Form Ex. P-2 was the prescribed form under the Act and the rules and the same had been sent for the purpose of the election in question by the Chief Electoral Officer, Madhya Pradesh, to the Returning Officer Shri Komal Singh. 8.In the election petition the sole grievance of the appellant was that there was no separate space in the nomination form where the name of the Constituency could be mentioned. It was not suggested that the proposer, whose name was Ajudhia Prasad or the appellant, had been misled in any way by the language of the Hindi Form. The appellant who gave evidence as P.W. 1 deposed that he had himself filled up the nomination form Ex. P-2 and got it signed by his proposer. There was no place for mentioning the name of the Constituency and therefore it was not mentioned. The appellant who gave evidence as P.W. 1 deposed that he had himself filled up the nomination form Ex. P-2 and got it signed by his proposer. There was no place for mentioning the name of the Constituency and therefore it was not mentioned. The appellant is not only a law graduate but has also worked as Civil Judge for some years and resumed practice of January, 1968. Shri S.K. Sharma the Assistant Returning Officer to whom the nomination paper was handed over gave evidence as P.W. 2. He stated that he had told the appellant that the name of the Constituency should be mentioned but the latter replied that there was no such space for writing the name of the Constituency in the nomination paper. Shri Sharma further stated, “I again told him that after the word ‘Main’ (I) in the nomination paper the name of the Constituency should be mentioned and you would realise the same if you would minutely read the form.” Thereupon the petitioner said “I know my own job”. The learned Trial Judge has believed this evidence and nothing has been shown why it should not have been so believed. We concur with the High Court that the form on which the nomination of the appellant was made (Ext. P-2) was the one which had been statutorily prescribed and that there was a complete omission to mention the name of the Parliamentary Constituency for which the appellant was being mentioned as a candidate. Furthermore the Assistant Returning Officer had drawn the attention of the appellant to this omission and yet the defect was not cured. This was done notwithstanding the fact, as will be presently seen, that where the defect is of a substantial character and is not of the nature contemplated by the Act and the rules it is not the duty of the Returning Officer to get this defect rectified or omission completed. 10.There can be no manner of doubt that in the present case there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 inasmuch as the name of the Constituency was not stated in the nomination paper which, therefore, could not be treated as having been completed in the prescribed form as required by Section 33(1) of the Representation of People Act. This defect was essential of a substantial character and did not fall within those provisions where the Returning Officer is enjoined either to get the defect rectified or ignore it. It was not the duty of the Returning Officer at the stage of the scrutiny to draw the attention of the appellant to the aforesaid substantial defect for the purpose of getting the same cured. The Returning Officer was fully justified in rejecting the nomination paper. 12.A copy each of this judgment should be sent to the Election Commission, India, as also the Secretary, Ministry of Law, for drawing their attention to the observations with regard to the nomination paper 2-A (in Hindi version) prescribed for nomination of a candidate for election to the house of the People and the desirability of accepting the suggestion made by the Election Commission in its letter, dated August 24, 1968, to the Secretary, Official Languages (Legislative) Commission, New Delhi, being Ex. R-7 in the above case or adding explanatory notes in the prescribed form in Hindi language.” 20.Taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties to the election petition, the provisions of Sections 33 and 36 of the Act 1951; Rules 4 and 4A of the Rules, 1961 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter Prahladdas Khandelwal (supra), it can safely be held that the election petitioner’s failure to mention the name of Constituency in Form No. 26 of nomination paper was of a substantial character and, therefore, his nomination paper was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the triable cause of action pleaded by the election petitioner would not render the election of respondent No. 4 to be void as per Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act, 1951, therefore, the application (I.A. No. 02/2024) moved by respondent No. 4 under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is hereby allowed and the election petition is dismissed.