( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the Election Tribunal at Palanpur Banaskantha District given on the 13th October 1952 dismissing the petition filed by Laljibhai Jodhabhai Bar the appellant before us and ordering him to pay a sum of Rs. 500. 00 by way of costs to Vinodchandra Jethalal Patel the respondent before us.

( 2 ) THE appellant who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner was an elector in the Deesa Legislative Assembly Constituency of Gujarat when the last general election was held in the month of February 1962. The respondent was a candidate who had stood for election from the said constituency. On 20th January 1962 nomination papers were filed propos- ing the respondent as a candidate for the election. There were also filed four nomination papers proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. There were also other nomination papers filed proposing the names of other candidates for the purpose of election. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was held. On 23rd January 1962 objections were heard and after hearing the objections the Returning Officer rejected the four nomination papers which had been filed proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai. The decision of the Returning Officer is exhibited in the case as an accompaniment to Exhibit 81. In giving his decision the Returning Officer has observed as follows :on scrutiny of the nomination papers it is seen that the proposers in all the four nomination papers have put the mark of their thumb impression and were presented to the Returning officer by the candidate himself. There was no proposer present at the time of the presentation of the nomination papers in the office room of the Returning Officer. As this has not been done at the time of presentation I could not satisfy myself as regard the identity of the proposers as required under rule 2 (2) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961. . . . . .

( 3 ) THE attestation by the Returning Officer is necessary requirement of the rule which in this case has not been done and so it is a defect of a substantial nature invalidating the nomination papers. . . . . . . . . The nomination papers. . . . . . are therefore rejected.

( 4 ) THE polling took place on the 23rd of February 1962 and the respondent was declared to have been elected at the election. The petitioner filed an election petition on 9th of April 1962 claiming that the election of the respondent was liable to be set aside on two grounds namely (1) that the nomination of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai was improperly reacted and (2) that the respondent or his election agent had committed various corrupt practices listed by the petitioner in the body of the petition.

( 5 ) WE shall first deal with the question whether the nomination papers proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai had been validly rejected or not. It was the case of the petitioner that in fact 8 nomination papers nominating Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai as a candidate had been presented to the Returning Officer where out only four had been accepted It was alleged that two out of the four nomination papers which had not been accepted were duly signed by the persons proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai and that the Returning Officer ought to have accepted those nomination papers. That ground however has not been pressed before us by Mr. Daru the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal has accepted the evidence of the Returning Officer to the effect that there were only four nomination papers presented to him proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai and Mr. Daru has been content to proceed with the appeal on the basis of such finding. The four nomination papers proposing the name of Jivrajbhai Kesarbhai Desai did not bear the signature of the persons proposing his name but bore their respective thumb marks. The said nomination papers did not bear the attestation of the Returning Officer.

( 6 ) WE shall fi