JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-Since the question involved is common to all the appeals, they are disposed of together.

2. The first appeal, viz., C.A. No. 6359 of 1994 arises from the judgment dated August 30, 1994 of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994. The appellant s nomination from Constituency No. 1, viz., Rajsamand, reserved for Scheduled Castes for 10th Legislative Assembly of the Rajasthan State was rejected on the ground that appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste. The respondent s election, after poll, was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had committed corrupt practices. After service of the notice, the respondent raised preliminary objections contending, inter alia that copy of the notice together with the affidavit in support of the election petition, i.e., Annexures 5 and 6, served on him, did not contain the verification by the notary; hence the election petition was not maintainable in accordance with Section 83(1)(C) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act ). The objections found favour with the High Court which accordingly dismissed the election petition by t