The election petition must comply with the specific mandatory provisions of the Act, including joining the relevant candidate as a respondent and providing full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the sole petitioner, namely, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, under the provisions of Sections 80 and 80A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) calling in question the election of the returned candidate, namely, Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh (sole respondent) as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 231 Gaya Muffasil Assembly Constituency, which was held in October, 2005.

2. The facts of this case are that the Additional Collector, Gaya, who was appointed as Returning Officer of the election in question, issued a notification on 23.9.2005 with respect to the detailed programme of the Assembly election in 231 Gaya-Muffasil Assembly Constituency. The last date for filing of nomination paper was 30.9.2005 and altogether seventeen candidates filed their nomination papers before the Returning Officer by 30.9.2005 fixed for filing the nomination papers of the said candidates. The sole petitioner was the official candidate of Janta Dal (United) political party, whereas, the sole respondent was the official candidate of the Indian National Congress political party. Alongwith his nomination papers, the petitioner had attached a notice in Form B regarding the symbol allotment order issued by the authorised person of Janta Dal (United) political party to show that he was the official candidate of the said political party. Another candidate, namely, Shri Binod Kumar Yadvendu also filed his nomination papers before the Returning Officer as the official candidate of Janta Dal (United) political party alongwith a notice in Form B regarding another symbol allotment order issued by the authorised person of the same political party, but this symbol allotment order was passed without cancelling the earlier symbol allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. The nomination papers of all the candidates were scrutinized on 1.10.2005 by the Returning Officer in presence of the candidates or their respective representatives, in which the petitioners nomination paper was accepted as an official candidate of Janta Dal (United) political party and an order to that effect was recorded by the Returning Officer on the nomination paper itself, but the nomination paper of Shri Binod Kumar Yadvendu claiming to be an official candidate of Janta Dal (United) political party was rejected as symbol allotment order in his favour and the filing of the nomination paper by him were subseqent to those of the petitioner. This decision was communicated to Shri Binod Kumar Yadvendu by the Returning Officer vide letter dated 1.2.2005 (Annexure-1), whereafter the Returning Officer returned the list of 16 validly nominated candidates in Form-4 as provided under sub-section (8) of Sec.36 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity) as none of the validly nominated candidates had withdrawn his candidature till the final date for withdrawal, which was fixed on 3.10.2005.

4. However, the Returning Officer sent letter no. 59 dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure-2) to the petitioner directing him to be present in his chambers at 2.30 RM. on the same date for the purposes of re-scrutiny of nomination papers of the election petitioner and the aforesaid Shri Binod Kumar Yadvendu as per direction of Legal Advisor of Election Commission of India. On the said date and time, the petitioner appeared before the Returning Officer and raised only question of law as the facts of the case were all admitted and submitted that since the Act and also the Rules did not confer any power of review upon the Returning Officer and when the nomination paper of the election petitioner had already been accepted; and that of Shri Binod Kumar Yadvendu had already been rejected on the date of scrutiny, there was no scope of re-scrutiny of nomination papers and no order of review could have legally been pass