Mandatory filing of original party authorisation forms governs valid nomination under election law, with fairness required before rejection.

Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act requires nomination in the prescribed form, and Section 36 allows rejection for non-compliance or substantial defect. Paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is mandatory for a candidate set up by a recognised political party, including filing original Forms A and B signed in ink by the authorised office-bearer; Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules saves only defects in symbols declarations and does not excuse failure to satisfy paragraph 13. The Returning Officer must also act fairly under the proviso to Section 36(5) and give an opportunity to answer objections before rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate set up by a recognised political party was required to file original Forms A and B signed in ink by the authorised office-bearer, whether non-compliance with paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 justified rejection of the nomination, and whether the rejection of the nomination in the facts of the case was improper under the election law.

Analysis: Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires presentation of a nomination paper in the prescribed form, while Section 36 permits rejection where there is failure to comply with Section 33 or where the defect is substantial. Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 saves only defects in the declaration as to symbols in Forms 2-A and 2-B; it does not extend to non-fulfilment of the separate requirements of paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. For a candidate claiming to be set up by a recognised political party, compliance with paragraph 13, including filing of Forms A and B signed in ink by the authorised person, is mandatory, and the use of the word "only" in clause (e) indicates exclusion of other modes. The documentary record, including the check list, Form 3A, and the list of nominated candidates, together with the oral evidence, supported the finding that the original Forms A and B had been filed with the nomination. The Returning Officer was also expected to act fairly under the proviso to Section 36(5) and afford an opportunity to rebut the objection before rejecting the nomination in hot haste.

Conclusion: The nomination was not validly rejected, the High Court's finding that the original Forms A and B were filed was upheld, and the challenge to the returned candidate's election failed.

---