https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273149 A person who had filed a nomination paper remained a candidate for the limited purpose of the election notification, even though the earlier nomination was rejected, because Rule 21(3) treats candidature as arising on presentation of the nomination paper and the notification did not confine the benefit to accepted nominations. The petitioner was therefore entitled to exemption from a fresh nomination fee. The alternative election remedy did not bar writ relief where the rejection order itself was unsustainable, and the consequential declaration of another candidate as Mukhiya could not survive. The rejection was set aside, the consequential declaration was quashed, and the election process was directed to proceed according to law. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 16:28:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273149 A person who had filed a nomination paper remained a candidate for the limited purpose of the election notification, even though the earlier nomination was rejected, because Rule 21(3) treats candidature as arising on presentation of the nomination paper and the notification did not confine the benefit to accepted nominations. The petitioner was therefore entitled to exemption from a fresh nomination fee. The alternative election remedy did not bar writ relief where the rejection order itself was unsustainable, and the consequential declaration of another candidate as Mukhiya could not survive. The rejection was set aside, the consequential declaration was quashed, and the election process was directed to proceed according to law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273149