JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Samela Ram and Dinanath challenging a decision of Munsif, Merta City, dismissing their election petition challenging the election of Chandanmal respondent No. 1 on the ground that the nomination paper to the office of Sarpanch of Lachhmi Narain respondent No 2 was wrongly rejected. The petition has been contested on behalf of Chandan Mal.
(2.) IT is not disputed, in view of the admission made in the written statement filed by Chandan Mal, that the name of respondent No. 2 to this writ petition was entered at serial No. 112 of the electoral roll of Ren Panchayat as 'lachhmi Narain' son of 'shri Kishan' and that he filed a nomination paper for being elected as Sarpanch in which he entered the serial number of the voters' list correctly as 112, but entered his name and signed it as 'lakshmi Narain son of Shri Krishna. ' The nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the name of the candidate did not tally with the name entered in the electoral roll vide endorsement AB made by him on the nomination paper Ex. A. 1. Samela Ram and Dinanath petitioners are electors of this Gram Panchayat. They filed the present election petition challenging the election of Chandan Mal on the ground that the nomination paper of Lachhmi Narain was wrongly rejected. This election petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on two grounds. One ground is that the name noted on the nomination paper was different from the name entered in electoral roll. Rule 18 (3) (b) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 runs as follows : - "the Returning Officer shall decide all such objections and may, either on the basis of such objections or on his own motion, reject any nomination paper on any of the following grounds, namely : - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) that he is not identical with the person whose number or name on the voters' list is stated in the nomination paper to be the number or name of the candidate. " Mere difference in the spelling of a candidate's name does not justify the Returning Officer in rejecting his nomination paper under the above rule. This rule lays down that the Returning Officer can reject it only if the person who has filed the nomination paper is not identical with the person whose name is entered in the voters' list. The rule referred to above is much wider than the corresponding R. 36 (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which lays down that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. In enacting rule 18 (3) (b) the Legislature has made it clear that the Returning Officer cannot reject a nomination paper unless he is satisfied that the person who has filed it is not identical with the person whose name is entered at the serial number mentioned in the nomination paper. This rule is much more certain than rule 36 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 inasmuch as it is not necessary to speculate what is or what is not a defect of substantial character. In the present case it appears that no objection was taken by any one against the nomination paper of Lachhmi Narain son of Shri Kishan as spelt in the electoral roll and Lakshmi Narain son of Shri Krishna as entered in the nomination paper by the candidate himself. As has been pointed out by me above even in reply to the election petition Chandan Mal who was declared as duly elected did not dispute that the person who had filed the nomination paper was identical with the person whose name was entered at serial No. 112 in the electoral roll. It was the Returning Officer who suo motu rejected the nomination paper without applying his mind to rule 18 (3) (b ). For he rejected it on the ground that the name entered on the nomination paper did not tally with the name entered in the electoral roll. His subsequent statement in court that he had doubt about the person who had filed the nomination paper being the same whose name was entered at serial No. 112 was an after thought. If he had been aware of the rule when he rejected the nomination paper and had entertained doubt about the identity then he would have stated on the nomination paper that he was rejecting it on the ground of identity. He did not say so. If he had any such doubt he should have made a summary inquiry on the spot which would have at once resolved his doubt. There are two Lachhmi Narains in the village, but their fathers' names are different. There is only one Lachhmi Narain whose father's name is Shri Kishan. Now "lachhmi" or "lakshmi" is a well known Hindu goddess and every Indian knows that "lakshmi" is the correct form and "lachhmi" is the colloquial form. They are not two different names. In the same way "shri Krishna" was an incarnation of God and colloquially he is referred to as "shri Kishan". They are not two different names. A nomination paper cannot be rejected for writing the same name with a different spelling. The right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate are substantial rights and they cannot be defeated on account of a defect of unsubstantial character. The second ground given by the Tribunal was that it had not been proved that the person who had filed the nomination paper was identical with the person whose name was entered in the electoral roll. The ground is erroneous as it was not disputed by the contesting respondent to the election petition that the person whose name was entered in the electoral roll at serial No. 112 was different from respondent No. 3 of the election petition who filed the nomination paper. On the contrary a witness of Chandan Mal stated in evidence also that respondent No. 3 was the same person. He however alleged that he told him that he filed his nomination paper without having any intention to contest the election. The learned Munsif has also written in his judgment that there are two persons of the name of Lachhmi Narain in the village. He has however omitted to note that the fathers' names of the two Lachhmi Narains differ. The learned Munsif was greatly influenced by the fact that Lachhmi Narain was not examined as a witness by the election petitioners. Rule 78 (c) gives an elector a right to challenge an election on the ground that any nomination paper was wrongly rejected. This right is independent of the willingness of the person, whose nomination paper has been rejected, to support the petitioner. In Mohana Ram vs. i Rajendra Singh (l) the candidate whose nomination paper had been rejected himself came forward before the Election Tribunal to give evidence for the successful candidate and stated that his nomination paper was rightly rejected. It was held by this Court that this was not a correct ground for the Tribunal to refuse to set aside the election. By improper rejection of a nomination paper of a candidate the election is rendered void whether or not the candidate had a fair chance of being elected. Returning Officers should therefore reject a nomination paper only with full sense of responsibility after being satisfied that the person filing the nomination paper is not the person whose name is entered in the electoral roll. I accordingly allow the writ petition. The election of Chandan Mal to the office of Sarpanch is set aside and fresh election is ordered. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. .;