JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High court dated 12/09/1991 whereby Election Petition No. 6 of 1990 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

(2) WE find it convenient to refer to the parties as they were before the High court.

(3) THE petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 contested for membership of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 254 Karimnagar Assembly Constituency in the election which was held on 22/11/1989.

(4) BEFORE the High court the petitioner had taken various grounds but only one ground was urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioner.

(5) ONE of the grounds urged before the High court was that the Returning Officer committed illegality in accepting the nomination paper of respondent 2 who was under 25 years of age and was not eligible to contest. He then pleaded that respondent 1 who was a winning candidate, secured 37,248 votes whereas the petitioner secured 36,821 votes and respondent 2 who was not eligible, secured 9568 votes. It was then submitted that the difference in votes secured by the petitioner and respondent 1 was only 427 and the votes polled by respondent 2 were more than 22 times the difference between the number of votes secured by respondent 1 the returned candidate and his nearest rival, the petitioner. It was further pleaded that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the High court may declare the election of the returned candidate as void and to declare the petitioner as having been duly elected from the aforesaid constituency.

(6) THE High court on consideration of the evidence led before it took the view that the second respondent appeared to be properly qualified on the face of the electoral rolls and the nomination papers and since no objection was raised to the acceptance of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer, it could not be said that there is any improper acceptance of any nomination paper under Section 100(1(d)(i) of the Act. The High court on consideration of evidence also took the view that respondent 2, was less than 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers and, therefore, was not qualified to contest the election and it amounted to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Act within the meaning of Section 100(1(d)(iv) of the Act. After giving this finding the High court took the view that what is to be seen is whether the result of the election of respondent 1 has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. The High court on consideration of evidence took the view that it is not so proved and consequently dismissed the Election Petition.

(7) RESPONDENT 1 had filed his written statement and inter alia pleaded: that the voting pattern and trends of the election demonstrated that in the facts and circumstances of the case the presence of respondent 2 in the contest or the votes polled by him do not in any way affect the result of respondent I. It was also submitted that the mere fact that the margin of votes by which respondent 1 succeeded over the petitioner is only 427 votes, it does not lead to necessary inference that the result of the election has been materially affected. It was further pleaded that it is not correct to say that by reason of respondent 2 polling more than 22 times the margin of votes by which respondent 1 succeeded over the petitioner, the election result of respondent 1 has been materially affected. It was asserted that the voting pattern clearly indicates that it was well nigh impossible for the petitioner to have secured even a small percentage of the votes polled by responden