IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26334 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. SAFBIN ASLAM, PADINJARE CHALIL MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. UBAIDATH, EDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTAKKATTUPADI, PERMBAVOOR P.O., 3. ANCYA, ASHARI PARAMBIL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR NORTH 4. RAHATH RAHMAN, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIAMKARA P.O.,KALAMASSERY. 5. SUMAYYA, CHELLAKKAL HOUSE, DAWATH NAGER, KIZHAKKUM BHAGOM P.O., PAZHANGANAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI. K.J. NASARUL ASLAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. PRINCIPAL MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, 2. RETURNING OFFICER, MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM. 4. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. SRI. T.A. SHAJI -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26334 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are students of the 1st respondent's College. They are aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting their nomination papers for election to the College Union this year. The reason for rejection is that they omitted to fill up one column of the nomination paper. According to the petitioners, the same is a curable defect and the Returning Officer ought to have permitted the petitioners to cure that defect. According to them rejection of nomination papers would arise only in cases of the elections under the Representation of the Peoples Act or for the local authorities since as in those elections, no specific power is conferred on the Retuning Officer for rejection of nomination papers. They would also submit that the reason for rejection is purely technical and it is settled law that for technical reasons nomination papers should not be rejected. W.P.(c)No.26334/08 2 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the University points out that the particular Clause, which the petitioners omitted to fill up, has been included in the nomination paper with a specific purpose, which can be found in Clause No.6.5.6 of Ext.P1 order of the Supreme Court of India. As per that Clause, a candidate gets only one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the candidates had earlier contested for election. That is why a specific Clause has been included in the nomination paper, to be filled up by the candidates showing as to the number of times, the candidate has contested election earlier. If the candidate fails to give that information in the nomination paper, the Returning Officer cannot decide whether the candidate is eligible to contest the election or not. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel without filling up that particular Clause, the nomination paper is not valid. W.P.(c)No.26334/08 3 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The particular Clause, which the petitioners have not filled up reads thus: “(6) I am contesting for post of office bearer for the ----------time/for the post of Executive Committee Member for the ------------time (strike off whichever is not applicable)”. Clause 6.5.6. of Ext.P1 reads thus: “The candidate shall have one opportunity to contest for the post of office bearer, and two opportunities to contest for the post of an executive member”. Reading these Clauses together, I am satisfied that Clause 6, of Ext.P2, which is the nomination paper has been included therein with a specific purpose namely as to whether they are eligible to contest election in view of Clause 6.5.6 of Ext.P1. Therefore, without filling up that Clause in the nomination papers, the nomination papers of the petitioners could not have been validly accepted by the 2nd respondent- Returning Officer which only has been done by him. As far as the contention of the petitioners that the Returning Officer does not have powers to reject the nomination papers is concerned W.P.(c)No.26334/08 4 I do not find any merit in the same. The Returning Officer is appointed for the specific purpose of conducting the election validly. Therefore, inherent powers are vested with him to accept or reject the nomination papers. I am also not satisfied that the reason for rejection is technical in nature because of the purpose of the Clause explained above. That Clause is included in the nomination paper with a specific purpose. Therefore, failure on the part of the petitioners to fill up that Clause is a material irregularity, which cannot be allowed to be cured or condoned after the last date for submitting nomination papers are over. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26334/08 5