ORDER
J.B. Koshy, J.
1. These two original petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the Executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocate's Association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the Advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O.P.No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was also given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in Court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh K. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is another column for putting membership number. In the first column, only name can be written. With regard to the fourth nomination paper, the only ground taken is that eventhough Suresh K. B. Itself is written membership number is also written along with the name Suresh K. B. With regard to the fifth nomination paper, name was correctly written as Suresh K. B. and is tally with the register. It is proposed by one Binod K. V. and seconder by Ramachandran M. Sri Ramachandran's membership number is also written. But it is stated that there is a spelling mistake as the letter 'D' was accidently omitted. Therefore, instead of Ramachandran it is written as Ramachanran.
2. On going through the file which was produced by the Returning Officer, there is no dispute regarding identity of the petitioner. Rule 42 of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Rules and Regulations, 1971, the only provision regarding acceptance of nomination, reads as follows :
'42. The nominations shall be signed by a proposer and a seconder, and shall also contain a statement of willingness of the proposed candidate to accept the office, if elected. The proposer, seconder and the candidate proposed shall be members included in the final list of voters handed over to the Returning Officer.'
When the name K. B. Suresh was written the membership number was also given so that there cannot be any dispute regarding identity of person. In three nominations the name K. B. Suresh was written and out of which in two nominations membership number was also specifically written. Initial can be written before the name and after the name unless it is stated specifically otherwise in the prescribed form. In this case, identity is not disputed. Merely because membership number was also written along with the name it cannot be stated that identity cannot be found out or there is substantial mistake in the nomination paper. Writing of membership number along with the name avoids any dispute regarding Identity of person. In the fourth nomination name Suresh K. B. itself is written. There also membership number was also written to avoid any confusion regarding identity. In the fifth nomination also the name Suresh K. B. itself is mentioned without any membership number. But it was rejected only because there is a spelling mistake in the name of seconder. His roll number was also written. I see no substantial mistake so as to attract rejection of the nomination paper.
3. Parties to the case submitted that they want an early decision on the point before the due date of election and they will accept the decision as there is no mala fides against the petitioners. It is settled law that nomination paper cannot be rejected in the absence of a substantive mistake. After analysing all the decisions A. Pasayat, J. (as he then was) in Shri Somnath Rath v. Shri Bikram Keshari Arukh, AIR 1999 Orissa 119 held as follows (at page 123) :
'It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case to find as to what mistake in a nomination paper can be considered a mistake of substantial nature. . . '
A Division Bench of this Court in Anthrayose v. Senior Inspector of Co-op. Societies, 1992 (2) KLT 489 : (AIR 1993 Kerala 39) while considering rejection of nomination paper of a Co-operative Society held that if there is substantial compliance the nomination peper shall not be rejected. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the decision in Santhosh v. Joint Registrar, 1994 (2) KLT 141 : (AIR 1995 Kerala 229). The Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 2099 (Sic) held that Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature.
4. On going through the five nomination papers it is seen that the mistake pointed out by the Returning Officer is not substantial at all. There is no difficulty in identifying the person concerned. In three nomination papers it is written as K. B. Suresh and in two nomination papers it is written as Suresh K. B. Merely Because the membership number is also mentioned it cannot be stated that there is substantial mistake. Even though there is a small spelling mistake in the seconder's name in the fifth nomination paper it is not a substantive mistake as his roll number was mentioned and that nomination paper was correct in all other respects, even according to the Returning Officer. Considering all these aspects together I am of the view that nomination papers on behalf of the petitioners ought to have been accepted. Therefore, I allow O.P.No. 31185 of 1999 and direct the Returning Officer to include his name also in the final list.
5. With regard to O.P.No. 31343 of 1999, it is rejected because the post in which he is contesting is not mentioned in the nomination paper. The election was for the posts of President of the Society, Vice President of the Society, Treasurer, member of the committee etc. It is not mentioned in which post he is contesting. In that cloumn it is only mentioned as 'Executive Committee'. It cannot be presumed that he filed the nomination paper for being elected as a member of Executive Committee. Therefore, rejection of nomination in this case is correct and valid.
6. Both the original petitions are disposed of accordingly.