GROVER, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in an election petition filed by the appellant Prahladdas Khandelwal one of the candidates for the Mid-term election to the Lok Sabha from the Betul Parliamentary Constituency No. 26 in the State Madhya Pradesh challenging the election of the respondent Narendra Kumar Salve the returned candidate.
(2.) SOME of the material dates may be noticed. The notification calling for the election was issued on January 27, 1971. The last date for filing the nomination paper was February 3, 1971; the scrutiny was to take place on February 4, 1971. The election was to be actually held on March 4, 1971 and the election result was to be declared on March 11, 1971. The appellant filed his nomination paper on February 2, 1971. An acknowledgement of the receipt of the nomination paper was given by the Assistant Returning Officer. The Assistant Returning Officer gave a certificate under Art. 34 of the Constitution that the appellant had been administered the oath as required under that Article. In this certificate there was a mention of 26th Betul Parliamentary Constituency. According to the evidence of the Assistant Returning Officer Shri S. K. Sharma R. W. 2, in the nomination paper which the appellant filed there was no mention of the Parliamentary Constituency from which he was contesting the election. This defect was pointed out to him by the Assistant Returning Officer but it appears that the appellant did not cure that defect. On February 4, 1971 which was the date fixed for scrutiny the nomination paper of the appellant was rejected by the Returning Officer Shri Komal Singh Thakur, Collector of Betul on the objection of one Goverdhandas. The ground given for rejection was that the name of the Constituency for which the appellant had filed the nomination paper was not mentioned therein. The Returning Officer held that owing to this defect which was of a substantial character the nomination paper was invalid. The sole ground in the election petition filed by the appellant was that his nomination paper had been erroneously and wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. In paragraph 6 it was stated that a blank nomination form had been purchased by him from the Election Office, Betul. All the details mentioned in the form were properly filled in. There was no separate space left in the form to mention the name of the Constituency. It was asserted that there was difference between the nomination form in Hindi and in English and even if the name of the Constituency was necessary to be mentioned the Assistant Returning Officer should have got it filled up under proviso to S. 33 (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. In other paragraphs of the petition it was pleaded that the certificate relating to the oath clearly contained a mention of the 26th Betul Parliamentary Constituency and, therefore, the Returning Officer was in a position to know from which Constituency the appellant was contesting the election. It was claimed that the alleged defect was not of a substantial character and the nomination paper could not have been rejected by the Returning Officer.
(3.) THE respondent resisted the election petition on the ground, inter alia, that there was no defect in the nomination form supplied to the appellant. THE omission to mention the name of the Constituency was a defect of substantial character. It was denied that it was the duty of the Assistant Returning Officer to get the substantial defect in the nomination form rectified. THE sole issue which arose for decision was whether the nomination paper of the appellant had been wrongly rejected. THE High Court gave the following findings. (1) THE nomination paper in Hindi (Ext. P-2) is the authoritative text of the form prescribed under the Act and the rules made thereunder; (2) Neither the name nor the number of the Constituency was mentioned in the nomination paper, (Ext. P-2). (3) THE omission to mention the name of the Constituency was a defect of a substantial character. (4) THE Returning Officer was not enjoined under the law to go beyond the nomination paper and to find out for which Constituency a particular candidate had been nominated. (5) THE statutory requirements of the Election Law have to be strictly applied. As the nomination paper of the appellant was found to be defective the defect being of a substantial character the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting it. Apart from that the appellant did not get the defect rectified even though the same had been pointed out to him bys the Asstt. Returning Officer. The first question that has to be determined is whether the nomination form which was supplied was misleading or defective and for that reason it was not possible to fill in the name of the Parliamentary Constituency from which the appellant was contesting the election. Section 2 (1) (g) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 gives the meaning of the word "form". It means a Form appended to the rules and in respect of any election in a State includes a translation thereof in any of the languages used for official purposes of the State. Rule 4 provides that every nomination paper presented under sub-s. (1) of S. 33 shall be completed in such one of the Forms 2A to 2E as may be appropriate. Form 2A relates to the nomination paper to be filed for election to the House of the People. According to S. 5 (1) of the Official Languages Act 1963 a translation in Hindi published under the authority of the President in the Official Gazette on or after the appointed day, inter alia of any order, rule, regulation or bye-law issued under the Constitution or under any Central Act shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in Hindi.;