BASI REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Election Original Petition no. 21 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Election Commissioner at Gurazala and to quash the order dated 17th July, 1965, passed by that Authority, whereby the election petition filed by Komara Gopaiah, 4th respondent in this writ petition, was allowed and the election of Vema Rama Guruvu, the petitioner in this writ petition, was held to be void under rule 59 (c) of the Election Rules, and a further direction was given that a fresh election be held to the 8th constituency of Macherla Panchayat.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows. A programme for the conduct of elections, for the Gram Panchayat of Macherla was notified in May, 1964. The village was divided into fifteen constituencies in accordance with the Election Rules. Nominations were invited for all the constituencies and the last date for filing nominations was 18th May, 1964. Nominations were filed before the Election Officer, Macherla, who is the 2nd respondent in this writ petition. Komara Gopaiah, the 4th respondent, filed his nomination to the 8th constituency for being elected as a member in the prescribed form, namely, Form No, I. Besides the 4th respondent (Komara gopaiah), the writ petitioner and four others also filed their nominations to the 8th constituency. The nominations were scrutinised on 19th May, 1964 in the presence of among others, the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent. No objections appear to have been raised by anyone as to the regularity of the nomination papers. However, the Election Officer acting suo motu found a discrepancy in the description of the fathers name of Komara Gopaiah, that whereas in the nomination paper. the fathers name of Komara Gopaiah was shown as Peda Kasaiah, in the electoral roll his fathers name was shown as Papaiah. But it is significant to note that in the nomination paper the house in which Komara Gopaiah was residing was shown as house No. 63 of the 9th Block in Macherla and his serial number in the voters list was shown as 162. Because of this difference in the description of the fathers name of the candidate, the Election Officer rejected the nomination of the 4th respondent, Komara Gopaiah. Thereafter the four other candidates who had filed their nominations withdrew from the contest leaving the writ petitioner. Vema rama Guruvu, alone in the field. Subsequently on 29th May, 1964 he was declared elected unopposed from that constituency.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to reproduce the order passed by the Election Officer rejecting the nomination of the 4th respondent. The order reads:"order. The fathers name of the candidate is noted as Papaiah in the printed electoral roll. But the name of the fathers name is noted as Kasaiah in the nomination paper. As the applicant is not a voter as per the voters list, this nomination is rejected. (Sd ) K. L. Benny, 19th May, 1964. Election Officer, Zone 1, macherla Panchayat Samithi. "

( 4 ) A bare reading of this order would show that the Election Officer entertained no doubt as to the identity of the candidate, but he was carried away solely by the difference in the fathers name of the candidate. The fathers name was shown in the electoral roll as Papaiah, whereas in the nomination paper it was shown as Kasaiah. That was the sole ground on which the nomination paper was rejected.

( 5 ) AS indicated already, at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers, the 4th respondent and the writ petitioner were present as also some others, and it is the 4th respondents case that the Election Officer never apprised him of the course of action he was going to take, namely, rejecting his nomination paper on the ground of discrepancy in the fathers name, and further that the Election Officer never gave him an opportunity to establish his identity. His case is that no one ever doubted his identity because every one in the village including the writ petitioner himself knew that he was the person residing in house No. 63 of the 9th block in Macherla, whose serial number in the voters list was 162.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the arbitrary action taken by the Election Officer, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer as provided by the Election Rules the very next day. Along with the appeal, he submitted a certificate issued by the Village Magistrate stating that the 4th respondent was really the candidate who had filed the nomination and that his fathers name which was shown as Papaiah in the electoral roll, was an obvious mistake. Just as the election Officer had not addressed himself as to the question of identity of the candidate, so also the appellate authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer, did not apply his mind as to whether the identity of the candidate was in doubt, but merely went by the discrepancy in the fathers name and dismissed the appeal. This is how his order dated 22nd May, 1964 reads :"the fathers name does not tally with the printed list. The Election Officer has rightly rejected the nomination paper. The appeal is dismissed. "

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, as already pointed out, upon the other candidates withdrawing from the contest, the writ petitioner was declared as having been duly elected from that constituency.

( 8 ) AS against the orders of the Election Officer and the appellate authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 4th respondent herein filed an election petition before the Election Commissioner, Gurazala. The main ground upon which the election petition was based was that the Election Officer as well as the revenue Divisional Officer had lost sight of the proviso to rule 8 of the Election rules and consequently the rejection of the 4th respondents nomination was improper, and since such improper rejection has materially affected the result of the election, the election should be set aside and a fresh election should be ordered. Evidence was adduced by both sides at the trial of the election petition and the main issue that fell for decision was : "whether the rejection of the petitioners (Komara Gopaiahs) nomination paper bt the respondents 2 and 3 (the Election Officer and the Election Authority) is improper".

( 9 ) AFTER a scrutiny of the evidence the Election Commissioner found that the Election officer had failed to give an opportunity to the 4th respondent to establish his identity before rejecting his nomination paper. The same irregularity was committed by the appellate authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer also. Both those authorities proceeded on the footing that a wrong description of the name of the candidate was sufficient in itself to invalidate the nomination.

( 10 ) WE are satisfied that the view taken by the Election Commissioner is manifestly right. We need only refer to rule 8 and in particular, the Proviso, to show that the view taken by the Election Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer was palpably wrong and the view of the Election Commissioner is plainly right:"8. (1) On the date appointed for the scrutiny of nominations, the candidates, the proposer of each candidate and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate and no other person may attend at such time and place as may be specified under rule 7. The Election Officer may however admit such other persons as he thinks fit to assist him. The Election Officer shall give such persons all reasonable facilities to examine the nomination papers of all candidates, which have been received as aforesaid. (2) The Election Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections Which may be made at the time to any nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds: (i) that the candidate is ineligible for election as a member of gram panchayat under sections 16, 17, 18 or 19 of the Act, or (ii) that the proposer is a person whose name is not registered on the electoral roll for th at constituency, or (iii) that the candidate or his proposer, has failed to comply with any of the provisions of rules 4 or 6, or (iv) that, in case the election is solely for a seat or seats for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes or for women, the candidate does not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes or is not a woman, as the case may be : provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or of any other particulars relating to the candidate or his proposer as entered on the electoral roll, if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is established beyond reasonable doubt. "

( 11 ) IT will be seen that the Proviso, in terms express and explicit lays down that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of any other particulars relating to the candidate if the identity of the candidate is established beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the nomination of the 4th respondent was rejected because there was an incorrect description of the fathers name of the 4th respondent.

( 12 ) WHEREAS the real name of the father was Peda Kasaiah as shown in the nomination paper, it was mentioned as Papaiah in the electoral roll. The 4th respondents case was that a mistake had crept into the electoral roll and that there was no one bearing the name of Komara Gopaiah who was the son of Papaiah and was residing in house No. 63 of the 9th Block in Macherla and whose voters serial number was 162. When the Election Officer felt that there was an incorrect description of the fathers name of the candidate it was his plain duty to have apprised the candidate of that discrepancy and given him a reasonable opportunity to establish his identity.

( 13 ) THAT was not done obviously because the Election Officer completely lost sight of the provisions of the Proviso to rule 8. The appellate authority namely the revenue Divisional Officer fell into the same error. It was, however, contended by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that sub-rule (2) of rule 8 contemplates only a summary inquiry where an objection is raised to the validity of a nomination or where the Election Officer wishes to proceed suo motu and since there is no machinery prescribed for summoning witnesses and taking evidence, the Election Officer was not bound to hold any inquiry. No doubt sub-rule (2) of rule 8 speaks of "summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary ", as a condition precedent to the rejection of the nomination paper on the grounds specified thereunder. But a " summary inquiry " cannot be equated with " no inquiry ". It postulates some kind of inquiry however informal and short it may be. Here in the present case there was no inquiry of any sort.

( 14 ) IT was then contended that as the Election Officer cannot be said to be acting judicially or quasi-judiciallyy in rejecting a nomination paper he was not bound to give an opportunity to the candidate to adduce evidence to establish his identity, and as such the Election Commissioner was in error in setting aside the election of the writ petitioner on that ground. This contention is completely answered by a ruling of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Subba Rao, C. J. , and Krishna rao, J. , in Visweswara Rao v. D. P. Officer, (1956) An. W. R. 421 : A. I. R. 1957 A. P. 539. This is what the learned Judges said with regard to the question whether an Election Officer acts judicially or administratively in deciding objections to the validity of a nomination paper under the rules framed Under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, which are exactly similar to the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The learned Judges stated the position thus at page 542 : "it is clear that the rules provide for a summary remedy for the disposal of the objections raised to the nominations as early as possible. It provides a hierarchy of tribunals for disposing of the objections within the prescribed time. The procedure prescribed for an enquiry before the Election Officer is essentially judicial in nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The duties of the Election Officer certainly fit in with the aforesaid definition (Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, (1950) S. C. J. 451 : (1950) 2 M. L J. 703: A. I. R. 1950 S. C. 222. ). He has legal authority to decide on the objections raised by the candidate. The question decided by him affects the rights of the parties, and in deciding the objections raised he hears the parties and may also make an enquiry and therefore he has a duty to act judicially. If the act of the original authority is a judicial act, it follows that the acts of the appellate or revisional authorities would also partake of the same character. . . . . . . . "we, therefore, hold that the orders of the Election Officer, the District Panchayat Officer and the Government were all judicial acts liable to be quashed, if they exceeded their jurisdiction in making the said orders. "

( 15 ) IT follows from this decision that the inquiry, which an Election Officer is empowered to conduct when an objection is raised to the nomination of the candidate, is judicial in character and as such it attracts the principles of natural justice. One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is that before a persons rights are taken away or abridged by an order of a prescribed authority, that person should be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and establishing what the law requires him to establish. In the present case no such opportunity was given to the 4th respondent to establish his identity, which is really the sine qua non as laid down by the Proviso to rule 8 (2) of the Election Rules.

( 16 ) THE Election Commissioner was, therefore, fully justified in setting aside the election, the result of which had been declared on a palpably wrong view of the effect of the Election Rules. It follows that there are no merits in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of the 4th respondent. Advocates fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.