JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against a decision of Munsiff Parbatsar acting as a Tribunal under R. 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960. The petition has been contested on behalf of Rajendra Singh respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE election of the Sarpanch of Chandi Panchayat was to take place in December, 1960. On 25. 12. 60 which was the date for filing nomination papers Mohana Ram petitioner, Rajendra Singh respondent No. 1 and Madan Singh alias Badan Singh respondent No. 2 filed their nomination papers. THE nomination papers of Mohana Ram and Madan Singh were rejected by the Returning Officer and Rajendra Singh was declared elected. Against has election Mohana Ram filed an election petition in which several grounds were taken. This election petition was rejected by the learned Munsiff. One of the grounds taken in the election petition was that Rajendra Singh was below 25 years in age on the date of filing nomination paper. The finding of the Tribunal is that he was over 25 years in age on that date. This finding cannot be interfered with in the present petition. Another ground was that the nomination paper of Madan Singh was wrongly rejected. This nomination paper was rejected on two grounds. The first ground was that he did not give his ward number along with the number in the voters' list in column No. 2 of form I prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960. The column itself reads "number in the list of voters". It does not require the candidate to give the ward number along with the number in the list of voters. As such the nomination paper cannot be rejected by the Returning Officer merely on the ground that the candidate has not given the number of the ward along with the number in the list of voters. The Returning Officer should enquire from the candidate his ward number and if his name cannot be found in the list of voters for the ward in which he says he is residing at the number given in the nomination paper then alone the nomination paper can be rejected. If the nomination paper is so rejected the Returning Officer should state clearly and specifically in his reasons for rejection that he asked the candidate to give the number of the ward in which he is residing and either he was unable to do so or that his name is not entered in the electoral roll of that ward at the number given in the list of voters. The learned Munsif also came to the same finding in connection with the nomination paper of Mohana Ram who had also not given the ward number along with the number in the list of voters in his nomination paper. The statutory right of an elector to stand as a candidate cannot be defeated without substantial reasons. The other ground on which the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper or Madan Singh was that he had not indicated whether or not he belonged to the scheduled caste As was held in Hardev Vs. Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu (1) the nomination paper could not nave been rejected merely for failure to do so as this defect is not one of a substantial character. The learned Munsif however refused to set aside the election of Rajendra Singh on the ground that Madan Singh's nomination paper was wrongly rejected for the reason that Madan Singh himself came forward to give evidence for Rajendra Singh and stated that his nomination paper was rightly rejected. This was erroneous as R. 78 (c) gives an elector a right to challenge an election on the ground that "any nomination was improperly rejected. " On behalf of Rajendra Singh it is contended on the basis of an affidavit of Madan Singh which was filed in this Court that he was a covering candidate for Rajendra Singh and mat the election of the latter could not be set aside on the ground that Madan Singh's nomination paper was wrongly rejected. It is pointed out that the petitioner himself alleged in the petition that Madan Singh got his nomination paper rejected deliberately in collusion with Rajendra Singh. Neither Rajendra Singh nor Madan Singh alleged in their written statements or in their statements before the Tribunal that Madan Singh was the covering candidate tor Rajendra Singh. On the contrary Madan Singh stated that if his nomination paper had not been rejected he would have won the election. That means that he was not a covering candidate for Rajendra Singh and was really contesting the election independently. For reasons given above the election of Rajendra Singh should have been set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that Madan Singh's nomination paper was wrongly rejected. Another ground taken in the present petition is that the Tribunal permitted Rajendra Singh to produce evidence to the effect that Mohana Ram was disqualified under sec. 11 (a) of the Panchayat Act without an amendment of the written statement which was improper and vitiates the decision of the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on Ram Phal Vs. Braham Parkash (2 ). In view of my finding that the election of Rajendra Singh is liable to be set aside on the ground that Madan Singh's nomination paper was rejected wrongly it is unnecessary to go into this question in the present writ petition. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside the decision of the Election Tribunal, allow the election petition and set aside the election of Rajendra Singh. In the circumstances or the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Collector Nagaur so that he may hold fresh election) to the office of Sarpanch of Chandi Panchayat at an early date. . ;