- (1.) THE following, question has been referred for reply to a Division. Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court: - "whether the rejection of all the nomination papers by the returning officer in an election under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act is tantamount to "the declaration of the result of election" as Contemplated by sec. 19 of the Act and whether an election petition by a candidate whose nomination paper has been rejected would lie even though no candidate has been declared elected?"
(2.) THE brief facts of the case may be mentioned in order to understand the question. THEre was general election to the Sojat Municipal Board in July/august 1956. Nominations were invited and scrutiny of nomination papers took place on the 28th of July 1956. THEre were two candidates who filed nomination papers for election in Ward No. 10 THE Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of both these candidates on the ground that they were not qualified to stand for election. No election was, therefore, held in this ward, while the rest of the election was held on the due date. Eventually, we are told that a kind of by-election was held to this ward some months later.- Ismail appellant was one of the persons who had filed his nomination paper. The reason for rejecting his nomination paper was that he was not literate as required by rule 13 of the Rajasthan Town Municipal Election Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules ). Ismail filed an election petition on the ground that he was literate as required by rule 13 and the Returning Officer was wrong in rejecting his nomination paper. This application was dismissed by the District Judge before whom it was filed under sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The learned Judge held that the application was premature. Thereupon Ismail filed an appeal before this Court. That appeal came before a learned Single Judge and the question arose before him whether in circumstances like these where all the nomination papers were rejcted and no candidate was declared elected, an election petition under sec. 19 of the Act would lie at all. The contention of the appellant before us is that sec. 19 of the Act does not require that there should be some person who is declared elected before an election petition would lie under it. This argument is based on the last words of sec. 19 (1) which provides that an election petition would lie to the District Judge "for the determination of the validity of the election". Now sec. 19 (1) reads as follows: - "at any time within ten days after the date of the declaration of the result of an election, any candidate who stood for election or any ten Persons qualified to vote at that election, may apply together with a deposit of fifty rupees as security for costs to the judge having jurisdiction over the district within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of the validity of the election. " It came up for interpretation in Tekchand vs. Bhanwarlal (1) : The point involved in Tekchand's case was, however, different. What had append there was that the nomination paper of one candidate had been rejected, while the nomination papers of other candidates had been accepted. Tekchand, whose nomination paper was rejected, came to this Court, by way of writ, while the process of election was not complete and the poll had not taken place. It was in that connection that this Court held that it was open to Tekchand to challenge the validity of the election after the election was over and that this Court would not interfere by way of writ before the remedy by way of election petition was exhausted. It was pointed out that the word "election" as used in sec. 19 (and this particularly referred to the last words of sec. 19 (1)) should be understood in an extensive sense, namely that it embraces within itself the entire process of election beginning with the filing of a nomination paper and the several stages and steps subsequent thereto culminating in the declaration of the result by the returning officer. This specific question, however, which has been referred to us by the learned Single Judge in this case did not arise in Tekchand's case. The answer to the question before us depends on the meaning to be given of the words "the declaration of the result of election" appearing in sec. 19 (1), for an election petition can only lie within ten days after the date of the declaration of the result of an election. If, therefore, there is no declaration of to result of an election in a case, no election petition will lie under sec. 19, whatever may be the other remedy to a person aggrieved in a situation like the present. Before we consider sec. 19 of the Act, we should like to refer to provisions in other Municipal Acts on which we have been able to lay our hands. In sec. 19 of the U. P. Municipal Act, the election of any person as a member of the board may be questioned by an election petition on various grounds. In sec. 22 of the Bombay Municipal Act the validity of any election of a councillor is brought in question by any person qualified either to be elected or to vote at the election. In Punjab, the provision is to be found in rule 77 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules and provides that an election petition against the return of a candidate at a municipal election may be filed on various grounds. These provisions make it clear that an election petition at least in these three States only lies when a candidate has been declared elected and not otherwise. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that sec. 19 of the Act has not used words similar to those found in the laws or rules of the above three States and that on the words used in sec. 19, it is not necessary that someone should have been declared elected before an election petition would lie under that section. It is true that sec, 19 does not use the words which are to be found in the laws or rules of the three States mentioned above. We have, therefore, to consider what meaning should be given to the words "the declaration of the result of election" which appear in sec. 19 and which do not appear in the laws or rules of the above three States. We may in this connection refer to the Rules as they may help in understanding the meaning of the disputed words in sec. 19 Rules 15 provides for filing of nomination papers. Rule 17 provides for scrutiny of the nomination papers filed and after scrutiny, it is open to the returning officer to reject any nomination paper. When the scrutiny is over, the returning officer publishes a list of persons eligible to stand for election and announces their names. Then comes rule 19 which for the first time deals with the declaration of the result. Under rule 19, where the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies, the candidate or candidates may be declared elected by the returning officer without any votes being recorded. Where, however, there are more candidates than the number of vacancies, the rules provide a procedure for taking votes. After votes have been taken, the returning officer is required under rule 36 to declare the result of the election. The rules thus contemplate the declaring of the result of the election when some person is to be declared elected after the stage of nomination has passed, Therefore, when sec. 19 speaks of the declaration of the result of an election, it seems to us that it contemplates that somebody should be declared elected and only when somebody is declared elected that the right to file an election petition within ten days arises under it. The meaning of the word "election" is to be found in Wharton's Law Lexicon (Fourteenth Edition) at page 362 as follows: - "the act of selecting one or more from a greater number for an office. " Election, therefore, in its narrow sense involves the actual selection of some person out of a greater number to an office. In the Oxford English Dictionary (Volume III) election has two meanings, namely (1) The formal choosing of a person for an office, dignity, or position of any kind; usually by the voice of a consituent body; (2) The choice by popular vote of members of a representative body; the whole proceedings accompanying such a choice. The second is the more extensive meaning while the first is the narrower meaning. Now when we are dealing with the words "the declaration of the result of election", it can, in our opinion only mean in that context the declaration of someone's name as having been actually elected. Therefore, we are of opinion that an election petition only lies under sec. 19 of the Act when someone's name has been declared as elected whether it be under rule 19 of the Rules or rule 36. But so long as no one's name is declared as elected, no election petition under sec. 19 would lie. But of course this does not mean that in a case like the present, there would be no remedy to a person who feels that his nomination paper has been wrongly rejected and when no election could in fact take place because all other nomination papers were also rejected In such a case, the person feeling aggrieved by the wrong rejection of his nomination-paper has a remedy byway of writ and the decision in Tekchand's case (l) will not stand in the way. That case only applies where a nomination paper is rejected in a case where other nomination papers have been accepted and the election is pending or has taken place. In the present case, the applicant did take recourse to the other remedy and his writ application was rejected (vide Civil Writ Petition No. 191 of 1956 decided on 25th November 1957 ). Our answer, therefore, to the question referred to us is that where all the nomination papers have been rejected under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, there is no declaration of the result of election as contemplated by sec. 19 of the Act and, therefore, no election petition under that section would lie. Let this answer be placed before the Bench concerned. . ;