- (1.) THIS is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner is Vidya Vrat Shastri whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer for Sarpanchship of Tehsil Panchayat, Weir Distt. Bharatpur. It is stated by the petitioner that a nomination paper was filed by him before the Returning Officer on 13th of May, 1955, for contesting the election of Sarpanch of Tehsil Panchayat, Weir, but his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the description of residence of the proper as given in the nomination paper did not agree with the description given in the list of voters prepared under Rule 21 of the Panchayat Election Rules. It is urged that the ground on which the nomination paper was rejected was not relevant for purposes of election and the order of the Returning Officer in this behalf is, therefore, perverse and the election of Sarpanch that took place after the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner should be quashed and a direction be issued to the Chief Panchayat Officer to hold a fresh election allowing the petitioner an opportunity to contest it, No reply has been filed by any one of the opposite parties. Shri Chaturvedi has appeared for respondent No. 3, Chiman Singh, and he has not been able to show how the point of description of residence of a proposer is necessary and material for the purposes of election. Under sec. 58 (2) the Sarpanchas and Panchas of all the Panchayats in the Tehsil constitute an Electoral College for the election of Sarpanch. The proposer in this case was a Panch of Village Panchayat, Ballabhgarh and he specified the fact of his being a Panch of the Village Panchayat, Ballabhgarh in the nomination paper. By the rules it is not required that the proposer or seconder should also give any other description of theirs and it was not necessary for the proposer in this case to give any description regarding his residence. However, the proposer described his place of residence in the nomination paper which was different from the description of residence given in the list of voters prepared under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules, 1954. It may be pointed out that when the law did not require description of residence to be given in the nomination paper it was not proper and necessary for the Returning Officer to go into this point in refusing the nomination paper specially when the identity of the person was not disputed. In this view of the matter the ground on which the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper can be considered to be irrelevant and his order consequently cannot be regarded anything but perverse. The petitioner has been prevented from contesting the election on account of the rejection of his nomination paper when according to law he had a right to contest it. This petition succeeds and the order of the Returning Officer of the 11th of May, 1955, rejecting the nomination paper is set aside and the election held on the 19th of May, 1955, is quashed and the Chief Panchayat Officer is directed to hold a fresh election of Sarpanch of Tehsil Panchayat, Weir, in accordance with law. .;