Judgment

SINGH, J.:- These two appeals under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 22nd October, 1986 setting aside the appellants election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan. Election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly constituency No. (80 Karauli) was held in 1985. The appellant and 10 other candidates contested the election from the aforesaid assembly constituency. The Returning Officer declared the appellant duly elected on his having obtained majority of valid votes. Chandra Bhan Singh, respondent No. 1, filed Election Petition No. 1 of 1985 as an elector and another Election Petition No. 9 of 1985 was filed by Mukand Ram, respondent No. 2, also an elector before the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 80 of the Act, challenging the validity of the appellants election to the legislative assembly on the ground that Kanhaiya Lal a contesting candidate was not qualified to contest election under Article 173(b) of the Constitution as he was below 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers and his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer which materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. The appellant appeared and contested both the election petitions, and pleaded before the High Court that Kanhaiya Lal was qualified to be a candidate at the election as he had completed 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers and there was no improper acceptance of his nomination paper. He further pleaded that in any view, his election was not materially affected by the acceptance of Kanhaiya Lals nomination paper. Both the election petitions were consolidated and tried jointly by the High Court. The issues framed were almost identical in the two election petitions and the election petitioners and the appellant produced evidence in support of their cases before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 22nd October, 1986 held that Kanhaiya Lal was not qualified to be a candidate as he had not completed 25 years of age and that his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. The High Court further held that since the difference between the votes polled by the appellant and Roshan Lal an unsuccessful candidate who had obtained the next highest votes was only 4497 votes, the result of the election was materially affected. On these findings the High Court declared the appellants election void and directed the Election Commission to hold fresh election.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant raised only one submission before us in challenging the correctness of the order of the High Court. He urged that the finding recorded by the High Court that the improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Kanhaiya Lal had materially affected the result of appellants election was based on conjectures and surmises and not on any legal evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the two election petitioners had produced any cogent and reliable evidence to discharge the burden that the result of the election was materially affected on account of improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Kanhaiya Lal but on the other hand the appellant had produced large number of witnesses in support of his case, but the High Court had failed to consider the evidence of those witnesses. Dr. Chitale appearing on behalf of the respondents urged that on the material on record and having regard to the number of votes polled by Kanhaiya Lal and the difference between the votes polled by the appellant and the next unsuccessful candidate Roshan Lal the findings recorded by the High Court are sustainable in law and the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram. (1984) 1 SCR 966.

3. In all eleven candidates contested the election. Afte