R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) Nomination paper filed -by the petitioner for the election to the office of Member of Municipal Board, Kannauj was rejected on 21st October, 1988 as the petitioner was in arears of Rs. 688-84. Since No dues certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board, the petitioner was permitted by order dated 24th October, 1988, to contest the election and the opposite parties were directed to allot him symbol etc. The question is whether rejection of petitioners nomination paper was in accordance with law, Normally the rejection of nomination paper or its acceptance is a ground on which the petitioner could have been permitted to file election but since there is no factual dispute and the petitioner had come even before the election had taken place, the objection was entertained and as an exceptional measure in the decision given in S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natrajan and others, AIR 1988 SC 616, the petition is being decided on merits.
(2.) In the counter affidavit the rejection of nomination paper is justified under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Municipalities Act It is urged that the petitioner was granted loan for construction of "Sulabh Sauchalaya" at his house but the same having not been paid, he was not entitled to a No dues certificate or was eligible for contesting the election. Whether No dues certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, is conclusive proof or not and whether the Returning Officer was precluded from accepting any other evidence need not be gone into as even assuming that the petitioner was in arrears of loan for construction of Sulabh Sauchalaya, the question is whether he can be held to be debarred under Section 166 (b) of the Act which reads as under : "166 (b) - In a sum payable under clause (c) of Section 196 or Section 229 or Section 330 in respect of supply of water, or payable in respect of any other municipal service or undertaking, or" Section 229 or 330 relate to supply of water on agreement or charges for water supply. Therefore, they obviously do not help the opposite parties. The only section which is to be examined is sub-clause (c) of Section 196 which reads as under : "196 (c) - On the application or with the consent of the occupier, at any time undertake the house scavenging of a house or building or the (collection, removal and disposal of exrementitious and polluted matter from privies, urinals and cesspools) in any building or on any land or the removal of other offensive matter of rubbish from a building or land, on terms to be fixed by the bye-law in this behalf ; and " A bare perusal of this sub-section indicates that it applies where a person is permitted to exercise the right of customary sweeper and scavenging etc. In any case, the granting of loan for construction of Sulabh Sauchalaya is not covered under sub-clause (c) of Section 196. The opposite parties could not have rejected the nomination paper of petitioner for non-deposit of aforesaid amount.
(3.) In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Order dated 21st October, 1988, is quashed. Petition allowed.;