- (1.) This is a joint petition by Madan Lal Kapur son of Chuni Lal and Madan Lal son of Mela Ram under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of quo warrant praying that the election of Ved Parkash son of Anant Ram and Vidya Sagar, respondents 5 and 6, under Section 12(2) of the Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 , is illegal and inoperative because the nomination papers of the petitioners have been illegally rejected.
(2.) It is common ground that no election petition is provided in the Act or the rules made under the Act. The rejection of the nomination papers has been made final by rule 9. Therefore, if the rejection is in accordance with the rules, no grievance can be made by the petitioners under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) The contentions in the petition are that under the Act in accordance with Section 12(2) two members have to be elected to the market committee from amongst the licensees who have obtained licences under Section 10 of the Act. For these two seats a large number of persons filed their nomination papers including the petitioners. The petitioners claimed to be the representatives of the licensee-firms and on that basis filed their nomination papers. When the nomination paper came up for scrutiny before the returning officer in the case of Madan Lal son of Mela Ram, the following order was passed by the returning officer while rejecting the nomination paper :- "I have scrutinised this nomination paper. Shri Ved Parkash, candidate, has objected that Madan Lal candidate has filed his nomination paper as a licensee but no authority letter on behalf of other partners of the firm has been attached with it which may show that he is a representative of other partners. I reject this nomination paper for want of the said authority letter." In the case of Madan Lal son of Chuni Lal the order rejecting the nomination paper reads thus :- "Shri Ved Parkash candidate has raised an objection saying that there must be some authority letter on behalf of other partners of the firm along with the nomination paper which may show that he is a representative of them. The objection is valid. I, therefore, reject this nomination paper." It will be apparent from the reading of both these orders that according to the returning officer the requirement was that the nomination papers should have along with them a letter of authority showing that the person filing the nomination paper was the representative of the firm which hold the licence under Section 10. It is against these rejections that the present petition has been filed.;