JUDGMENT

V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J:— This being an election appeal filed under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) calling, for urgent determination, as soon as the hearing of arguments in the appeal was completed we announced our decision by passing the following order:

"We are of the view that for reasons which we shall state later, the nomination paper of the appellant was validly accepted by the Returning Officer and we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court invalidating the election of the appellant. There will be no order as to cost of the appeal.".

We now proceed to set out our reasons for reaching the aforesaid conclusion.

2. General Elections to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held in May, 1982. Ganu Ram, the appellant herein, Rikhi Ram Kaundal (first respondent) and three others had contested the 23-Gehrwin Assembly Constituency seat which is a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates only. The nominations filed by all these five candidates had been accepted as valid by the Returning Officer and the polling took place on May 19, 1982. The result of the election was announced on. May 22, 1982 and the appellant was declared elected from the said reserved constituency by reason of his having secured 7477 votes as against his nearest rival Rikhi Ram Kaundal (first respondent) who had polled only 6901 votes.

3. On July 3. 1983, Rikhi Ram Kaundal filed an election petition in the High Court under Ss. 81, 100 and 101 of the Act challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on three grounds. The first ground urged was that the nomination paper filed by the appellant was not in order inasmuch as it did not contain any declaration by the appellant specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which the said caste has been declared to be a Scheduled Caste in the State. On this basis it was contended that the nomination paper of the appellant had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. The second ground of objection raised was that since the appellant had not made any declaration in the nomination paper regarding the particular Scheduled Caste to which he belonged, he should be deemed to be disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat in question - 23-Gehrwin reserved constituency - in view of the mandatory previsions contained in sub-section (2) of S. 33 of the Act. The third ground of objection put forward was that the appellant did not, as a matter of fact, belong to any of the castes which had been declared as Scheduled Castes in. relation to the State of Himachal Pradesh and hence he was not qualified to stand as a candidate from the aforesaid reserved constituency.

4. The High Court upheld the first two objections raised by the election petitioner which related to the question of validity of the nomination paper and set aside the election of the appellant holding that the nomination paper of the appellant could not be regarded as valid in view of the fact that it did not contain a declartion by the appellant specifying the particular caste of which he is a member and the area in relation to which the said caste is a Scheduled Caste in the State. The third contention by the respondent election petitioner was, however, rejected by the High Court since the Court found on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case that the appellant did, in fact, belong to the Lohar caste which has been declared as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Aggrieved by the judgment, of the High Court setting aside his election and unseating him, the appellant has come up to this Court with this appeal.

5. Section 33 of the Act deals with the topic of presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Sub-section (2) of the said section which alone is relevant for our present purpose reads :

"(2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall