Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. This petition under sections 80 & 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 presented under section 81 of the said Act, seeks a declaration that election of respondent from 39-Mebo (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Arunachal Pradesh is void under section 98(b) read with section 100(1)(c) of the said Act and further seeks quashing of order dated 25/26.03.2014, passed by the Returning Officer, 39-Mebo (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency rejecting the nomination of the petitioner as improper.

2. Basic facts are not in dispute. However, for adjudication of the case, those are set out hereunder.

3. Notification dated 15.03.2014 was issued declaring holding of general election for constitution of a new Legislative Assembly for the State of Arunachal Pradesh giving details of the schedule of election as under:-

4. Petitioner was nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as its nominee for the 39-Mebo (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency. Respondent was nominated by the Indian National Congress as its nominee for the said Constituency. Accordingly, both petitioner and respondent filed their respective nomination papers for the said Constituency. No other candidate filed nomination paper for the said Constituency.

5. On 24.03.2014, when the nomination papers of both the candidates were taken up for scrutiny by the Returning Officer, respondent filed an objection against the candidature of the petitioner. It was contended that petitioner being a Central Govt. Counsel for the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court was holding an office of profit under the Govt. of India and, therefore, he was disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh. It was also contended that petitioner being a counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court, was in full time employment of the Govt. of India, which also disqualified him from being a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Petitioner submitted his written argument against the objection raised by the respondent. Petitioner stated that he was engaged as panel Central Govt. Counsel in the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court and in such capacity, he was not entitled to retainer fee or salary. Such engagement was for a limited period of 3 years. Nature of engagement was such that petitioner also had right of private practice. Therefore, engagement of the petitioner as Central Govt. Counsel would not amount to holding of office of profit. It was further contended by the petitioner that such engagement of the petitioner even if held to be an office of profit stood exempted under paragraph 4 of the Schedule appended to the Arunachal Pradesh Legislature Members (Prevention of Disqualifications) Act, 1977. Regarding engagement of the petitioner as counsel for CBI, petitioner contended that the term of engagement as counsel for CBI was for a period of 3 years, which had expired on 02.03.2014, whereafter, petitioner did not seek extension and consequently, it was not extended. Thus, it was contended that petitioner was not holding office of profit under the Govt. and accordingly, the objection raised by the respondent should be dismissed.

6. On 26.03.2014, Returning Officer issued an order dated 25/26.03.2014 holding that engagement of the petitioner as Central Govt. Standing Counsel amounted to holding of office of profit within the meaning of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It was further held that such office of profit was not exempted under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Arunachal Pradesh Legislature Members (Prevention of Disqualifications) Act, 1977 (1977 Act). Accordingly, nomination of the petitioner was rejected by holding him to be disqualified to be a member of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly because of holding of an office of profit.

7. Thereafter certificate of election dated 26.03.2014 was issued by the Returning Officer de