At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI
For the Appellant: Prabha Shankar Pandey, Dilip Kumar Goswami, Advocates. For the Respondents: ---------.
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi & Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's nomination form has been rejected at the time of scrutiny under Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
Panchayat Election of Members Rules, 1994. The challenge, raised is to the order dated 12.2.2014 of the Election Officer, Zila Panchayat who has recorded that the name of the proposer on the nomination' form of the petitioner as Ramakant does not find place entered in the electoral list of Zila Panchayat Ward No. 11.
2. To explain this, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no scrutiny was carried out under Rule 18 or else the petitioner would have got the same corrected as it was only an error which was not substantial in character. The contention appears to be that the name Rameshwar appearing in the electoral roll is of the same person, namely, Ramakant and therefore there is no dispute of identity with regard to the two names.
3. Learned Counsel has also relied on the photostat copy of the bank passbook in this regard. He submits that in view of the evidence, which was already available with the petitioner, the nomination form could not have been rejected.
4. We have considered the submissions raised and Rule 18 sub-rule (2) provides that the Election Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect or other error which is not of a substantial character and may for the purposes of removing any such defect or error allow any entry to be corrected in the nomination paper.
5. The words used in the aforesaid Rule are categorical that any error which may be of a substantial character cannot be corrected. In the instant case, to our mind, two names, namely, Rameshwar and Ramakant are entirely different and, therefore, the defect is substantial in nature. The Election Officer has not committed any error in rejecting the nomination form on the ground aforesaid.
6. The correction will have to be carried out in the electoral roll according to the rules for which the aggrieved person can apply before the appropriate forum. All such corrections have to be made available before the last date of nomination, which is not possible now in the present case. No correction in the electoral roll can be made by the nomination officer especially of a substantial nature as presently involved. There is no merit in the writ petition.