Hanuman dass vs G.S. Fiji

B.R. Tuli, J.—This petition has been filed by Hanuman Dass who was nominated as candidate for election to the Market Committee. Abohar, from amongst producer-members thereof. The Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, framed the election programme according to which the filling of nomination papers was to take place in the office of the Returning Officer on the 23rd of October, 1968, between 11 A.M. and 3 P.M., the scrutiny was fixed for 25th of October, 1968, withdrawal of nomination papers on 28th of October, 1968, taking of poll on 17th of November, 1868, and the counting of votes and declaration of results on the 18th of November, 1968. The petitioner subscribed his acceptance to the nomination paper, a copy of which has been filed as annexure ''B'' to the writ petition, his proposer being one Khiali Ram. The nomination paper was complete in all respects, i.e., it bore the signature of Khiali Ram as proposer, it bore the signature of Hanuman Dass as candidate who had agreed to the nomination and it bore the signature of Diewan Chand Sarpanch certifying that Hanuman Dass was a producer and resident of the notified market are Abohar. This nomination paper was presented before the Returning Officer at 1.40 P.M. on the 23rd of October, 1968, by Khiali Ram proposer and not by Hanuman Dass. On the day of scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected this nomination paper on the ground that it had not been presented in person by Hanuman Dass. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Returning Officer in this petition.

Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents supporting the order of rejection passed by the Returning Officer. Reliance has been placed on rule 7 (4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Election to Market Committees) Rules, 1961, and the instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, by memo No. 8293-97/LFA dated 18th of October, 1968. These instructions have no statutory force and will not avail if the interpretation of the relevant rule does not bear that interpretation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in rule 7 (4) the words used are:

The nomination paper complete in all respects shall be delivered in person to the Ruturning Officer by the time and date fixed for the filling of such papers under rule 5." The words which require interpretation and on the interpretation of which the result of this petition depends, are "in person". Rule 7 deals with nomination of candidates. In sub-rule (1) a person who is eligible to be a candidate is mentioned and he is to be nominated as candidate for the membership of the committee of that area. sub-rule (2) states that the nomination paper of each candidate shall be subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination. Sub-rule (3) provides for a certificate to be given by a Magistrate, Lambardar, Panch or Sarpanch to the effect that the candidate is a producer and resident of the notified market area. After these sub-roles comes sub-rule (4) which has been set out above. It has to be observed that in sub-rules (1) to (3) the word ''candidate'' is used wherever it was necessary, but in sub-rule (4) the word candidate'' is not used so that it has to be interpreted whether the rule-making authority meant that the candidate should present his nomination paper in person or somebody else could do so. There is a certificate of delivery prescribed on form ''D'', which is the nomination paper, which has to be signed by the Returning Officer and this certificate only states that "this nomination paper was delivered to me at my office at (date and hour)". It does not prescribe that the Returning Officer has to state the person by whom it was presented. The note given by the Returning Officer on the nomination paper of the petitioner to the effect that it was presented by Shri Khiali Ram and Hanuman Dass was not present is on his own and not as required by anything stated in the Rules or in the form itself. There is a form ''P'' of the nomination paper which has to be filed by the representative of a co-operative society in which the prescribed endorsement by the Returning Officer is:

This nomination was presented to me by-(name) at 9 date and hour).

In rule 27 of the said Rules, it is provided that the nomination paper will be delivered either by the candidate in person or sent through the representative of the society. In rule 7(4) the only words used are "in person" and it is not made clear whether by the candidate in person or by the proposer in person or by any other person on behalf of the candidate. In Section 33(1) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, it has been made clear that the nomination papas has to be presented either by the candidate in person or by his proposer so that the intention of the legislature is clear that one of the two can present it, but it must be presented in person and not by post or any other means. After giving my careful consideration to the various arguments and interpretations urged before me by the learned counsel on the both sides, I am of the View that the words "in person" used in rule 7(4) of the said Rules means ''personally'' as opposed to by any other mode of presenting, i.e., by post It is not specified that it has to be done by the candidate in person or by the proposer in person. If this pub-rule is to be interpreted to mean that the presentation must be by the candidate in person, then we shall have to read the word ''candidate'' in this sub-rule which is not permissible. It is against all canons of interpretation for this Court to add words where they are not needed. To me it appears that the nomination paper could be presented either by the proposer or by the candidate, but it must be presented to the Returning Officer in person by either of them and not to be sent by post. I am inclined to that view because the nomination is filled in by two persons, one as proposer and the other as candidate, both of whom are interested in the candidate getting elected. The certificate of the Magistrate, Lambardar, Panch or Sarpanch is only a formal matter to indicate that the candidate is eligible to stand as a candidate. Therefore, both the proposer and the candidate having an interest in the election of that particular candidate, any one of them can present the nomination paper in person to the Returning Officer. The nomination paper in this case having been presented by the proposer in person bad been validly presented and could not be rejected on this ground by the Returning Officer.

For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed and the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Since the interpretation of the rule was involved, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.