Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 - Election petitions filed challenging the election of the appellant to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency - On the ground of improper rejection of nomination papers of the proposed candidate - The High Court declared the election of the appellant null and void - Hence, the appeals - Whether it is mandatory for a candidate set up by a recognised political party to file original ink signed Forms A and B appended to para 13 of the 1968 Order - To consider - Non-compliance of requirements of para 13 of the 1968 Order, is a defect of substantial character and the nomination paper of a candidate proposed by a single elector set up by a recognised political party having such defect is liable to be rejected as it tantamounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33, namely, the nomination paper having not been completed in the prescribed form thus, it was necessary for the proposed candidate that Forms A and B referable to clauses (b), (c) and (d) of para 13, 1968 Order were submitted to the Returning Officer duly signed in ink by the authorised person of BJD - The Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer ought to have afforded an opportunity to the election petitioner until next day to rebut the objection and show to the Returning Officer that the proposed candidate had filed Forms A and B duly singed in ink by the authorised person of BJD, therefore, the election petitioners proved the improper rejection of the proposed candidate's nomination paper and hence proved the ground for setting aside appellant's election to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act - Appeals dismissed - No cost.

Topic(s)-Election Symbols

Important Decision(s)-