I concur hi the result arrived at in the opinion of the majority of the court. I am unable, however, to agree with all of the reasons advanced by the majority in reaching such a conclusion.
*765I am of opinion that the petitioner had a complete and adequate statutory remedy to test the validity of the certificate of nomination filed in behalf of the intervening respondent, under c. 53, § 11, as amended through St. 1956, c. 135, and § 12 as amended through St. 1943, c. 334, § 7. Section 11 reads so far as material, “When certificates of nomination . . . have been filed, and are in apparent conformity with law, they shall be valid unless written objections thereto are made [within a designated period of timej. . . . Objections so filed with the state secretary shall forthwith be transmitted by him to the state ballot law commission.” Section 12 provides for hearings and a determination of the objections by the ballot law commission within a designated period of time.
I am of opinion that the purported certificate of nomination of the intervening respondent to fill a vacancy caused by the withdrawal of the candidate who had been duly nominated at the primary election was not in conformity with law in many respects, particularly in that it failed to disclose that it was signed and sworn to by the chairman and secretary of the meeting of the delegates in their respective capacities, as required by c. 53, § 15, as amended through St. 1943, c. 334, § 9. In these circumstances the petitioner within the designated period of time should have filed objections to the certificate of nomination filed with the Secretary so that the validity of such nomination certificate be determined by the ballot law commission. Failing to pursue such procedure he cannot now be heard on his petition for a writ of mandamus.
I agree that c. 53 is loosely drawn and in many respects it appears to be vague and ambiguous, but the requirement that a certificate of nomination, such as we have before us, be signed and sworn to by the chairman and secretary of the meeting of delegates appears to me to be plainly clear. It is mandatory and not directory. Cf. Carr v. Burke, 333 Mass. 365, 368.