SHIV DAYAL J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) VINODKUMAR petitioner and Tekchand (respondent 2) filed nomination papers for the election of Panch, from Ward No. 15 (village Simaria), of Gram Sabha of Jhingral, tahsil Sihora, district Jabalpur. In that village, Ward No. 14 is a reserved seat for scheduled tribes, while Ward No. 15 is a general seat. The petitioner's nomination paper unequivocally mentioned that he was proposed as a candidate for the general seat of Ward No. 15. Still his nomination paper has been rejected on the ground that in another column, he has mentioned Ward No. 14, which created an ambiguity. The nomination paper opens with a declaration by the proposer in which he specifies the name of the candidate and the name of the ward from which the candidate is to contest the election. The material portion of the form may be reproduced here (as rendered into English) : (1) I hereby nominate ...........as a candidate for election from Ward No. /Name:- (2) Ward No./Name........... (3) Name of Candidate.......... (4) Father's/Husband's name.......... (5) Age.......... (6) Full postal address of the candidate.......... M. P. No. 599 of 1964 decided on 22-12-1964. N (7) Ward No. / Name in which the name of the candidate is entered as a voter in the voters' list.......... (Numbering has been done by us for the sake of convenience. Rest of the form is not material for this petition.) It is quite clear from the above form that the number or name of the ward from which a candidate seeks election has to be filled in by the proposer in column (1), while entries in columns (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are all meant to establish the indentity of the candidate. In the present case, the entry in column (1) was rightfully and unambiguously made. The declaration reads thus: "I hereby nominate Vinod Kumar as a candidate for election from Ward No. / Name 15." (MAIN ETADDWARA VINODKUMAR KO WARD KRAMANK/NAM 15 SE NIRWA- CHAN HETU UMEDWAR KE RUP MEN NAM NIRDESHIt KARTA HUN.) It is nobody's case, and it could not be, that there is any ambiguity in this entry. Likewise, there is no ambiguity in the entry in column (7), where No. 14 is entered to show that the candidate's name appears in the voters' list of Ward No. 14.
(3.) NOW, what the proposer did was that in column (2) he entered No. "14" and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper merely on the ground that by that entry the candidate's name proposed for Ward No. 14, for which the candidate was not eligible, it being a reserved seat. The Returning Officer also noticed that in column (1), the candidate's name was proposed for Ward No. 15. This he calls an ambiguity. The purpose of column (2) is not at all clear, nor could the learned Government Advocate make it to us clear. Firstly, the expression "WARD KRAMANK/NAM" is vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Which Ward No, is to be entered in this column the number of that ward from which the candidate's name is proposed for election, or the number of that ward in the voters' list in which his name is entered? The heading of the column should have been clear. Secondly, just above that column, when there is a firm declaration that the candidate's name is proposed for election from such and such ward, what on earth is the purpose of column (2), is not at all understandable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these columns (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are meant for the identity of the candidate and, therefore, a candidate has to enter in column (2) the number of that ward in the voters' list of which his name will be found for the purpose of scrutinising his identity. Learned Government Advocate's answer is that that entry is to be made in column (7), so that column (2) could not be meant for that purpose as it would mean necessary repetition. But that argument recoils against itself, inasmuch as if the number or name of the ward from which a candidate is to contest the election is to be entered in column (2), it was a mere repetition of what was said in the opening column which we have marked as (1). Then, column (2) seems to be redundant. At any rate, if the heading of that column (2) itself is so vague, ambiguous, and likely to mislead, no one who has been misled can be deprived of his valuable right to contest the election. When the entries in columns (1) and (7) were clear and unambiguous, the entire purpose of the nomination paper was fulfilled, inasmuch as the form conveyed that the petitioner's name was proposed for election from Ward No. 15, while his name was to be found in the voters' list of Ward No. 14. That being so, the nomination paper could not be rejected. Where rejection of a nomination paper is flagrantly wrong and. arbitrary, and no enquiry or evidence is required, the remedy by way of an election petition cannot be said to be equally efficacious. That is so, not merely because the petitioner will be deprived of contesting the election, but also because the Gram Sabha (to which election is sought) being an electoral College for other elections, the petitioner will be deprived of contesting the latter. This is, there-fore, a fit case where appropriate relief must immediately be given to the petitioner. The Rules do not provide for an appeal from improper rejection of a nomination paper.;