9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was changed and instead of caste their occupation had to be entered. The only person who kept himself abreast of the law was the first respondent. He struck out the word caste in the printed form and wrote in occupation instead and then gave his occupation, as the new rule required, and not his caste. All the other candidates, including the appellant, filled in their forms as they stood and entered their caste and not their occupation. The first respondent raised an objection before the Supervising Officer and contended that all the other nominations were invalid and claimed that he should be elected as his was the only valid nomination paper. The objection was overruled and the election proceeded. 2. The appellant secured the highe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially . 4. But apart from that, this is to be found in the Act itself. 5. The learned High Court Judges were of opinion that the directions here about the occupation were mandatory. That, we think, is wrong. 6. The present matter is governed by section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act (II) of 1922. Among other things, the section empowers the State Government to make rules under this Act regulating the mode......... of election of presidents......... 7. and section 175(1) directs that all rules for which provision is made in this Act shall be made by the State Government and shall be consistent with this Act . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. It was argued that if the candidate's ineligibility under those sections is established, then the Supervising Officer has no option but to refuse the nomination and it was said that if that is the force of the word may in a case under clause (a) it cannot be given a different meaning when clause (c) is attracted. 14. We need not stop to consider whether this argument would be valid if section 23 had not been there because the rules cannot travel beyond the Act and must be read subject to its provisions. Reading the 9(1)(iii)(c) in the light of section 23, all that we have to see is whether an omission to set out a candidate's occupation can be said to affect the merits of the case . We are clear it does not. Take the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d about a particular matter. A's satisfaction cannot be replaced by that of B; still less can it be dispensed with altogether. The law we were dealing with there also required that the satisfaction should be endorsed on the nomination paper. That we indicated was mere form and said at page 488 - If the Returning Officer had omitted the attestation because of some slip on his part and it could be proved that he was satisfied at the proper time, the matter might be different because the element of his satisfaction at the proper time, which is of the substance, would be there, and the omission formally to record the satisfaction could probably, in a case like that, be regarded as an unsubstantial technicality . 17. A number of En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
