Hegde, J. - (1.) There is an appeal by certificate. It relates to the elections to Municipal Council, Sidhi. The elections were held in 1969. In that election six persons i.e. four appellants and respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal were elected. Thereafter the first respondent herein an elector and apparently a busybody filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the validity of the election of all the returned candidates on several grounds. The High Court accepted that petition and set aside the election of all the returned candidates. The only ground on which the election of the returned candidates was set aside is that the returned candidates in their nomination papers had merely mentioned the number of the wards for which they were candidates but had failed to mention the names of those wards. It is not the case of the election petitioner nor is it the finding of the High Court that there was any difficulty in identifying the ward in which the concerned returned candidate wanted to seek election. The Returning Officer did not find any such difficulty. He accepted their nomination papers. Admittedly every ward had a specified number in addition to having a name.
(2.) The High Court was of the opinion that the successful candidates' failure to mention the name of the ward in their nomination papers was fatal and therefore the Returning Officer was not competent to accept their nominations. It thought that it was mandatory for all the candidates to mention in their nomination papers the names of the wards in which they wanted to seek election. Further it opined that a mere mentioning of the number of the ward may lead to clerical errors and therefore the rule-making authority had prescribed that the name of the ward also should be mentioned in the nomination paper. It is nobody's case (supra) that in the nomination papers with which we are concerned there were any errors as regard the ward numbers.
(3.) Let us now examine whether the High Court was justified in taking such a technical view of the matter. The election to the municipal councils is regulated by Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Rule 13 (1) reads: " 13 (1) (i). On or before the date fixed for filing nomination paper of candidates each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer or seconder, between the hours of 11 O'clock in the forenoon and 3 O'clock in the afternoon, deliver to the supervising officer a nomination paper completed in Form IV and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two duly qualified voters of the ward as proposer and seconder. **********" The relevant column in Form IV reads "Name and number of the ward". Going back to Rule 13 it is necessary to notice sub-rule (vi) of that rule which says: " The supervising officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not a substantial character." The question for decision is whether the non-mentioning of the names of the wards in the nomination papers is a defect of a substantial character For deciding that question we must first find out the reason behind the rule requiring the candidates to mention the names and the number of the wards in which they want to contest. It is obvious that the particulars in question are required to identify the constituency in which a candiate is desirous of seeking election. That purpose will be served if either the number of the ward or its name is given unless there are more than one ward having the same name. Once the number of the ward is mentioned in the nomination paper the identification of the constituency is complete. The name of the ward is merely an additional piece of evidence to identify the constituency. If the number of the ward is mentioned there will be no difficulty for the Returning Officer to find out in which constituency the candiate wants to seek election. We have no hesitation in holding that the nomination papers of the returned canidates were rightly accepted by the Returning Officer as they substantially complied with rules. If a nomination is accepted by the Returning Officer the presumption is that the nomination is a valid nomination. It is for the party who challenges its validity to establish his plea by showing that there was no substantial compliance with law.;