V.RAMASWAMI, J.

(1) THIS appeal is brought under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, from the judgment of the High court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25/08/1967 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967 whereby the High court held that the election of the appellant front Barwaha Vidhan Sabha Constituency held on 20/02/1967 was void.

(2) THE appellant was a candidate at the election of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from Barwaha Constituency held on 20/02/1967. The respondent was a candidate for election from the same Constituency. Besides the appellant and the- respondent there were two other candidates, namely, Nathu son of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram. There were two nomination papers filed for Nathu son of Rupa, one nomination paper (R- 3) was filed on January 19, 1967 at 2.12 p.m. and the second nomination paper (R-1) was filed on 20/01/1967 at 12.47 p.m. The nomination paper of Sita Ram son of Sadhu Rain (R-1) was also filed on 1/01/1967 at 2.32 p.m. In all the three nomination papers, the name of the candidate was proposed by one Sharawan son of Gheesa, an elector from that Constituency. On 21/01/1967, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the two candidates, Nathu son of Rupa and Sita-Ram son of Sadhu Ram on the ground that the same elector could not propose two different candidates for the same Consituency. At the polling which took place on 20/02/1967 the appellant was declared elected to the Assembly from the aforesaid Constituency on 22/02/1967 by the Returning Officer. On 29/03/1967, the respondent filed an Election Petition tinder s. 80 of the Act in the High court against the appellant. The respondent sought a declaration that the election of the appellant was voice under s. 100(c) of the Act on the ground that the nomination papers of Nathu son of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram were improperly rejected. By its judgment dated 25/08/1967, the High court accepted the contention of the respondent and declared the election of the appellant from Barwaha Constituency to be void.

(3) ON behalf of the appellant Mr. Gupte put forward the argu- ment that under the scheme and policy of the Act an elector can propose only one, candidate for a single seat Constituency and not more than one candidate and if more than one nomination is made for a single seat Constituency, all the nominations should be taken to be null and void. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Section 33 (2) of the Act, as it was originally enacted in 1951, contained an express ban against the same elector proposing more than one candidate for a single seat Constituency-Sec- tion 33(2) states `Any person whose name is registered in the electoral roll of the constituency and who is not subject to any disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 may subscribe as proposer or seconder as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled but no more.` Section 36(7)(b) reads as follows : `(7) For the purposes of this section (b)where a person has subscribed, whether as Proposer or seconder, a larger number of nomination papers than there are vacancies to be filled, those of the papers so subscribed which have been first received, up to the number of vacancies to be filled, shall be deemed to be valid.` But by the Amending Act 27 of 1956, ss. 33 and 36 have been recast and do not contain any ban as that contemplated by s. 33; (2) of the unamended Act. Section 33(1) & (12) after the amendment reads thus : `33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.-(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer between the hours of eleven oclock in the forenoon an three oclock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under sectio