- (1.) THIS is an application by one Ismail, resident of Sojat City, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and arises under the following circumstances:
(2.) IN connection with the municipal elections for the town of Sojat, the Collector pall, who is non-petitioner No. 2, appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, non-petitioner No. 3, as a returning officer for the elections. Non-petitioner No. 3 thereupon invited nomination papers to be filed by 25-7-1956. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper to non-petitioner No. 3 for his election as a member of Sojat Municipal Board from Ward No. 10. The only other person who submitted his nomination paper from the same Ward was non-petitioner No. 4, narain. On 28-7-1956, the returning officer scrutinized the nomination papers and rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner as also of non-petitioner No. 4. The petitioner's nomination paper was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualification as provided in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election rules, 1951 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'rules'), because it was found by the returning officer that the petitioner was not capable of reading and writing Hindi, nor was he otherwise literate. To this extent, there is no dispute between the parties on facts.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the correctness of the returning officer's order dated 28-7-1956, on the following grounds: (1) that the petitioner was literate inasmuch as he could read and write hindi, that he fulfilled the qualification of Rule 13 referred above, that he was eligible for standing as a candidate for the municipal elections and the returning officer was wrong in holding that he could not read or write hindi. (2) that the qualification laid down in Rule 13 does not appear in the rajasthan Town Municipalities Act No. 23 of 1951 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act), that if the legislature meant to provide such a qualification for a member, it would have found its place in the Act, that the Government of Rajasthan had no power to lay down such a Rule and hence Rule 13 (1) was ultra vires of the Act. (3) Even if ground No. 2 is not allowed Rule 13 (1) should be struck down because it offends against the petitioner's constitutional right of equality before the law. The petitioner's argument on this point is two-fold: (a) It is contended that Rule 13 is vague, that it does not lay down any definite standard of literacy, that it leaves unfettered discretion with the returning officer to fix his own standard and then test a particular candidate from that standard and reject him. It is urged that the Rule should therefore be struck down on the ground of vagueness. (b) It is next urged that Rule 13 in fact provides a disqualification inasmuch as all illiterate persons are debarred from standing for the membership of the municipal board, that this Rule puts an unreasonable restriction on the right of illiterate persons to stand for election, that such a restriction does not exist even for those persons who want to stand as candidates for election to the State Legislative Assembly or to the House of People, and therefore, the Rule should be struck down on this ground as well. ;