SHIV DAYAL J.

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Vinodkumar petitioner and Tekchand (respondent 2) filed nomination papers for the election of Panch, from Ward No. 15 (village Simaria), of Gram Sabha of Jhingral, tahsil Sihora, district Jabalpur. In that village, Ward No. 14 is a reserved seat for scheduled tribes, while Ward No. 15 is a general seat. The petitioners nomination paper unequivocally mentioned that he was proposed as a candidate for the general seat of Ward No. 15. Still his nomination paper has been rejected on the ground that in another column, he has mentioned Ward No. 14, which created an ambiguity.

(3.) The nomination paper opens with a declaration by the proposer in which he specifies the name of the candidate and the name of the ward from which the candidate is to contest the election. The material portion of the form may be reproduced here (as rendered into English) :

(1) I hereby nominate ...........as a candidate for election from Ward No. /Name:- (2) Ward No./Name........... (3) Name of Candidate.......... (4) Fathers/Husbands name.......... (5) Age.......... (6) Full postal address of the candidate.......... M. P. No. 599 of 1964 decided on 22-12-1964. N (7) Ward No. / Name in which the name of the candidate is entered as a voter in the voters list.......... (Numbering has been done by us for the sake of convenience. Rest of the form is not material for this petition.)

(4.) It is quite clear from the above form that the number or name of the ward from which a candidate seeks election has to be filled in by the proposer in column (1), while entries in columns (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are all meant to establish the indentity of the candidate. In the present case, the entry in column (1) was rightfully and unambiguously made. The declaration reads thus: "I hereby nominate Vinod Kumar as a candidate for election from Ward No. / Name 15." (MAIN ETADDWARA VINODKUMAR KO WARD KRAMANK/NAM 15 SE NIRWA- CHAN HETU UMEDWAR KE RUP MEN NAM NIRDESHIT KARTA HUN.) It is nobodys case, and it could not be, that there is any ambiguity in this entry. Likewise, there is no ambiguity in the entry in column (7), where No. 14 is entered to show that the candidates name appears in the voters list of Ward No. 14.

(5.) Now, what the proposer did was that in column (2) he entered No. "14" and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper merely on the ground that by that entry the candidates name proposed for Ward No. 14, for which the candidate was not eligible, it being a reserved seat. The Returning Officer also noticed that in column (1), the candidates name was proposed for Ward No. 15. This he calls an ambiguity. The purpose of column (2) is not at all clear, nor could the learned Government Advocate make it to us clear. Firstly, the expression "WARD KRAMANK/NAM" is vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Which Ward No, is to be entered in this column the number of that ward from which the candidates name is proposed for election, or the number of that ward in the voters list in which his name is entered The heading of the column should have been clear. Secondly, just above that column, when there is a firm declaration that the candidates name is proposed for election from such and such ward, what on earth is the purpose of column (2), is not at all understandable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these columns (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are meant for the identity of the candidate and, therefore, a candidate has to enter in column (2) the number of that ward in the voters list of which his name will be found for the purpose of scrutinising his identity. Learned Government Advocates answer is that that entry is to be made in column (7), so that column (2) could not be meant for that purpose as it would mean necessary repetition. But that argument recoils against itself, inasmuch as if the number or name of the ward from which a candidate is to contest the election is to be entered in column (2), it was a mere repetition of what was said in the opening column which we have marked as (1). Then, column (2) seems to be redundant. At any rate, if the heading of that column (2) itself is so vague, ambiguous, and likely to mislead, no one who has been misled can be deprived of his valuable right to contest the election. When the entries in columns (1) and (7) were clear and unambiguous, the entire purpose of the nomination paper was fulfilled, inasmuch as the form conveyed that the petitioners name was proposed for election from Ward No. 15, while his name was to be found in the voters list of Ward No. 14. That being so, the nomination paper could not be rejected.

(6.) Where rejection of a nomination paper is flagrantly wrong and. arbitrary, and no enquiry or evidence is required, the remedy by way of an election petition cannot be said to be equally efficacious. That is so, not merely because the petitioner will be deprived of contesting the election, but also because the Gram Sabha (to which election is sought) being an electoral College for other elections, the petitioner will be deprived of contesting the latter. This is, there-fore, a fit case where appropriate relief must immediately be given to the petitioner. The Rules do not provide for an appeal from improper rejection of a nomination paper.

(7.) For these reasons, the petition is allowed. The order of the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioners nomination paper is quashed. The Returning Officer shall treat the candidate as validly nominated and shall proceed with the rest of the process of election for ward No. 15 according to law.

(8.) Parties are left to bear their own costs in these proceedings.

(9.) NAIK J. - I agree that the petition should be allowed; but I would rather prefer to base my decision on the following considerations.

(10.) In the material portion of the form reproduced in the order of my learned brother in paragraph 3, it would be found that column 1 is meant for the name of the candidate who is sought to be nominated, as also the number and name of the ward for which he is being nominated. There is no dispute that this column was correctly filled in, both the name of the candinate and the ward number for which he was being nominated being correctly supplied. Column 2 then requires some ward No. /name to be specified. As it is followed by columns requiring the name of the candidate, his fathers name, age and full postal address, which all go to identify the candidate, it at first sight, appears that it is meant for the ward number of the ward in which the candidates name appears in the voters list. But then, for this there is column No. 7 specifically provided for. It could not, therefore, be for this purpose. It is suggested by the learned Government Advocate that column No. 2 is meant for mentioning the ward number, for which the candidate is being nominated. But, then, if this has to be mentioned in column 1 also, column No. 2 is a mere duplication of it, which does not appear plausible. In fact, on his reasoning, as the columns stand, both column No. 2 and column No. 3 appear to be superfluous as information required by these columns has already been supplied in column No. 1.

(11.) One more suggestion, which appears to be somewhat plausible to me, is that the expression Ward No. / Name, which occurs at the end of column No. I, is indicative of the columns which are to follow, i.e., columns Nos. 2 to 7 where the information regarding the ward number for which the candidate is being nominated, his name, etc. is to be supplied. This also appears to be reasonable, because the expression Ward No. / Name cannot be for Ward No. only. If that were so, then the oblique line between it and name has no meaning, and the word name has no relevancy, if ward No. alone were meant to be supplied there. This reasoning, however, breaks down when we come to consider column No. 2 where again Ward No. / Name is to be supplied. But, it may be that here it is the printers devil or the carelessness of the draftsman.

(12.) I confess I find it difficult to assert that one or the other of the aforesaid suggestions is the correct one. And if it is so on a close scrutiny of the form at leisure, after hearing two learned counsel argue the point at bar at some length how much more difficult it would be for a Janapada proposer, who is a layman, to make up his mind as to the information required of him for column No. 2. Under the circumstances, both columns 2 and 3 should be considered superfluous and any information supplied therein ignored if the information required by them has already been supplied in column No. 1. If all this information is not supplied in column No. 1, columns Nos. 2 and 3 may supplement it. But, no proposer should be penalized for not filling column No. 2 with the ward number of the ward for which the candidate is being nominated.

(13.) I therefore, hold that the nomination paper of the petitioner was wrongly rejected and that, in rejecting his nomination paper, he was being penalized by the Returning Officer by taking advantage of a confusion which was not of his (petitioners) making.

(14.) As for the desirability of interfering at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution, I agree that, under the circumstances of the case, interference is called for, first because no remedy is provided against the illegal rejection of a nomination paper, secondly because the rejection of the nomination paper is so manifestly wrong that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, thirdly because it will save needless worry and expenses to all concerned if the matter were to be taken up later by an election petition, and fourthly because there is no answer to the petitioners contention that no interference at this stage would deprive him of the right to contest further elections for Tahsil and District Panchayats, elections to which take place indirectly through those who are elected in the Gramsabha.

(15.) The petition is therefore, allowed. Costs to be borne as incurred. Petition allowed.