SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE elections for Municipal Board, Sadri are fixed on 20. 8. 2000 i. e. 3 days from today for which a notification was issued on 4. 8. 2000 under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short `the Rules' ). Nomination papers were required to be filed between 4. 8. 2000 to 3:00 P. M. of 8. 8. 2000. Scrutiny of nomination papers was to be done on 9. 8. 2000. THE date of withdrawal was 11. 8. 2000. Symbols were to be given to the contesting candidates on 12. 8. 2000.
(2.) THE petitioner filed his nomination form as an O. B. C. candidate and a nominee of Indian National Congress Party from Ward No. 14 reserved for O. B. C. on 8. 8. 2000. However, the authorisation from the Congress Party was offered to the respondent no. 4 Returning Officer only on 8. 8. 2000 at 3:20 P. M. whereas the same authorisation was supposed to be submitted latest by 3:00 P. M. of 8. 8. 2000. The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer on 9. 8. 2000 only on the ground that the authorisation letter was not given before the prescribed time limit (Annex. 2 ). The same is challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi vehemently submitted that the Explanation to Rule 12 (2) of the Rules is ultra vires as under Rule 10, no such time limit was fixed which is fixed only under the Explanation. It is true that under Rule 10, no such time limit is fixed and under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, the last date for filing of nominations was the fourth day after the date of publication of the public notice and under Rule 10 (3), the date for scrutiny for nomination paper is the day next to the last date for filing nominations. But in my opinion, some fixed time on the last day is required for acceptance of the nomination paper and authorisation letter from the concerned party and the Returning Officer cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period. It is, therefore, only by way of the Explanation to Rule 12 (2) that it is made compulsory that a candidate who desires to be considered as a candidates set up by a recognised political party shall have to produce letter to that effect signed by the President or head of the State unit of that party or any person authorised by him in this behalf on or before 3 PM on the last day for making nominations specified in public notice under Rule 10. Thus, in my considered opinion, providing fixed time for acceptance of authorisation letter from the candidates cannot be said to be ultra vires.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Joshi then submitted that there was a delay of hardly 20 minutes on the part of the petitioner to offer the authorisation from his part and instead of 3:00 P. M. , the authorisation letter was submitted at 3:20 P. M. Therefore, the Returning Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on such a highly technical ground. He submitted that the Returning Officer could not have rejected any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial character. He submitted that the nomination paper of the petitioner could have been rejected only on the following 7 grounds referred to in Rules 13 of the Rules:- (i) that the candidate is not enrolled in the municipal electoral roll as a voter of the municipality; (ii) that the candidate has not made or caused to be made the deposit referred to in rule 22; (iii) that the candidate has not attained the minimum age required for being elected as a member; (iv) that the candidate is disqualified under any provisions of the Act from being a member; (v) that the proposer has not been enrolled as a voter of the ward for which the nomination has been filed; (vi) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine; (vii) that the proposer has subscribed nomination for more than one candidate in the same ward. But the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on an altogether different ground, therefore, the impugned order of rejection is required to be set aside. It is true that under Rule 13 (3) of the Rules, it is provided that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. Substantial character is also mentioned in Rule 13 (4) of the Rules. A failure to complete or defect in completing the declaration as to symbols in a nomination paper in form 3 shall not be deemed to be defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-rule (3) It is also true that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in Rule 13 (1 ). But apart, from the other requirements of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules, in my considered opinion, it was open for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that the authorisation letter did not reach before 3:00 P. M. of 8. 8. 2000. ;