1971 (7) TMI 162 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of nomination paper for the post of Mukhiya based on previous rejection and fee deposit.

Analysis:
The petitioner's nomination paper for the post of Mukhiya was initially accepted by the Election Officer but later rejected by the Sub divisional Officer based on two grounds: previous rejection in 1970 and failure to deposit the nomination fee again. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that he had the right to file a fresh nomination paper in 1971 and was not required to deposit a fresh fee based on a relevant notification issued by the Government of Bihar.

The key contention raised by the respondent was that the petitioner could not be considered a candidate due to the previous rejection of his nomination paper, thus not qualifying for the fee exemption under the notification. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the act of presenting a nomination paper makes an individual a candidate regardless of subsequent acceptance or rejection.

The court further clarified that the notification did not distinguish between candidates whose nomination papers were accepted or rejected previously. It explicitly stated that if a candidate files a fresh nomination paper for the same post due to a postponed election and had previously deposited the fee, they are exempt from paying a new fee, irrespective of the acceptance status of the previous nomination paper.

Additionally, the court dismissed the respondent's argument that the rejection in 1970 should carry over to 1971, highlighting that the fresh election called for new nominations, making it a separate event. The rejection based on age incompetency in 1970 was deemed irrelevant for the 1971 nomination if the age requirement was met.

Regarding the remedy sought, the court held that the High Court had the authority to intervene under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, especially when the basis of the Sub divisional Officer's order was invalidated. The court allowed the application, quashed the rejection of the nomination paper, and annulled the declaration of the respondent as Mukhiya, directing the Election Officer to proceed with the election process lawfully.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the clear language of the notification and the procedural fairness in allowing the petitioner to contest the election without additional fee requirements, ultimately setting aside the rejection and subsequent election results.