Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- This appeal under Section 116A(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act for short), is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court setting aside the election of the appellant to Fatehabad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. By Notification dated November 23, 1983, the Constituency was called upon to elect a member at the by-election. November 30, 1983, was appointed as the last date for receipt of nomination papers. Scrutiny was scheduled for December 1, 1983. Poll was held on December 23, 1983 and appellant was declared as the returned candidate by securing 1339 votes in excess of votes polled by respondent 1 who had been fielded as the common opposition candidate. On February 2, 1984, the respondents filed an Election Petition asking the election of the appellant to be set aside on the ground provided under S. 100(1)(c) of the Act by pleading that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.

2. The appellant pleaded that. the nomination papers were defective and, therefore, liable to be rejected and the Returning Officer had acted property in rejecting them. It was further pleaded that defective nomination papers had been intentionally filed with a view to challenging the election in case it went in favour of the appellant.

3. Both sides led oral evidence. On the side of, the election petitioners, the Assistant Returning Officer among others was examined as PW. 4 while for the returned candidate (respondent before the High Court) the Returning Officer was examined as R.W. 3. The nomination papers as also the orders of rejection were produced and duly exhibited. The High Court came to hold that the nomination papers when filed were in order and while they were in the custody of the Returning Officers establishment, interpolations had been made and on the basis thereof the nomination papers had been rejected. Though the election petitioners faded to establish their plea contained in paragraph 16 of the election petition that the Returning Officer acted mala fide at the behest of the Chief Minister of the State, the Court took the view that the Returning Officer acted mala fide and had either directly or indirectly been responsible for the alteration in the nomination papers. Accordingly the election has been set aside and the Returning Officers conduct has been criticised and he has been directed by the High Court to share the liability of half the costs of the election petition. The Returning Officer had filed a separate appeal which is being disposed of today by a separate judgment.

4. There is no dispute before us that if the nominations of the two candidates - Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak are found to have been improperly rejected the election of the appellant must be held to have been rightly set aside. That is the effect of S. 100(1)(c) of the Act. The only question relevant for the disposal of this appeal is, therefore, to examine and decide whether the High Court was right in its conclusion that the two nomination papers had been improperly rejected. The relevant nomination papers relating to Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak have been produced and proved as Exhibits PI and P6 respectively. The orders made by the Returning Officer rejecting the two nomination papers have also been produced and marked as Exhibits. Similarly, the notice in statutory Form 3A as required under Rule 7 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to be published in the notice board of the Returning Officer has been produced and exhibited.

5. The Returning Officers order of rejection in respect of both the nomination papers is almost in similar terms. We, therefore, propose to extract one of them for convenience. The order of rejection reads thus :

"S. No. of the vote of proposer does not tally with S. No. mentioned in voter list. Hence rejected."

The order is cryptic and there is force in th