JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:— Special leave granted in all SLPS.

Mizoram acquired Statehood on February 20, 1987. At the general election held on January 21, 1989, the respondents of this batch of appeals contested the State Assembly elections as candidates of the Mizo National Front (MNF) from different constituencies. The results of the election were declared on January 23, 1989. They lost to candidates fielded by the Indian National Congress (I). The unsuccessful MNF candidates challenged the election of the Congress (1) candidates mainly on the ground that they had indulged in and were Guilty of corrupt practices. As many as fifteen such election petitions came to be filed in the Gauhati High Court on one single day, March 9, 1989. Although fifteen petitions were filed, one Congress (1) candidate had succeeded from two constituencies and one candidate belonged to the Mizo National Front (Democratic) Party. On service of notice of the filing of the election petitions, the returned candidates entered appearance and raised certain preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of each petition. On the basis thereof two preliminary issues were raised for consideration. The returned candidates moved for striking off the pleadings. Thereupon the original petitioners applied for amendment -of their election petitions which was strongly opposed bv the returned candidates. The preliminary objections, the applications for striking off the pleadings and the amendment applications were heard together.

2. The two preliminary issues raised by the learned Judge hearing the election petitions were (i) whether the election petitions were in conformity with the requirements of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R. P. Act), and the Rules framed thereunder by the Gauhati High Court and (ii) whether Rule 1 and the other related rules and notes thereto enabling the filing of the Election Petition before the Stamp Reporter assigned to the election court by the learned Chief Justice were ultra vires Article 329 of the Constitution and Section 169 read with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R. P. Act. So far as the first objection was concerned, the returned candidates contended that the election petitions were photocopies and could not, therefore, be treated as election petitions as contemplated by law, the copies of petitions served on the returned candidates were not attested to be true copies of the original petitions as required by Section 81(3), the copies served on them with the annexures were not true copies of the original; the election petitions were not signed and verified in the manner laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the source of information had not been disclosed in the verification of the affidavit in Form 25 as required by R.94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rules) and no schedule of material particulars of corrupt practice had been annexed to the affidavit purporting to be under Form 25. In regard to the second objection the contention was that the presentation of the election petitions before the Stamp Reporter was inconsistent with Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the R. P. Act and Article 329 of the Constitution inasmuch as the law requires that an election petition shall be presented to the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court overruled both the preliminary objections holding, in the case of the first, that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the relevant provisions and on the second point he ruled that the presentation of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter appointed or authorised under the Rules was presentation in accordance with the Rules and the same did not conflict with Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Thus both the preliminary objections stood rejected.

3. The returned candidates had applied under order VII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (the Code), for striking out certain averments from the memo of the election p