N.P. Gupta, J.-This petition has been filed by the returned candidate, against the Judgment of the Election Tribunal, being learned District Judge, Bikaner, dt, 12-8-2004, accepting the election petition, and, setting aside the election of the present petitioner, as Ward Member of Ward No. 4 of Nagar Palika, Nokha, in the election held on 21-8- 2000.

2. Facts of the case are that elections of Municipal Board, Nokha were held in August, 2000, wherein the petitioner along with other 10 persons filed their nominations, which were scrutinized on 9-8-2000. In that scrutiny, the nominations of Shanker Lal, Pushpa Devi and Prabhu Ram, sb Mangilal were rejected. Thereafter in the polling, the present petitioner is said to have polled highest number of votes, being 386 votes, and was declared elected.

.3. Challengingthis election, on 19-9-2000 an Election Petition was filed by the present respondent. The election was sought to be challenged on various grounds, viz., that the Returning Officer wrongly rejected the nomination of the election petitioner, who had filed nomination as an independent candidate. His nomination was rejected on the ground, that the name of one of the five proposers, viz. Dana Ram was not found in part No. 7 of the voter list, but was found in part No. 8 for which attention of the Returning Officer was invited at that time, to the effect that part No. 7 has erroneously been mentioned, and on that count nomination cannot be rejected, still the nomination was rejected, on the ground that part No. 7 was wrongly mentioned with respect to the proposes Dana Ram. The other ground raised is, that nomination of the other candidate Pushpa Devi was also wrongly rejected, on the ground that name of one of her five proposers, viz. Manzoor Ali was also not found in part No. 7 taut was found in part No. 8, at the same serial number, and the Returning Officer was requested with regard to this candidate also, but her nomination was also rejected. The next ground raised is that the nomination of Prabhu Ram, sb Mangilal was also rejected on the ground, that name of his proposer Prem Chand was not found at S. No. 272, but was found at. S. No. 273. Likewise, the name of proposer Madan Singh was not found at S. No. 115, but was there at S. No. 415, still on this count his nomination was rejected. The next ground raised was, that the nomination of another Prabhu Ram, sb Shri Kana Ram was wrongly accepted, as his name was not entered in the voter list of Ward No. 15, and this Prabhu Ram had polled 349 votes, while the returned candidate polled 386 votes. Thus, the election was materially .affected. The next ground raised is that another candidate Sohanlal was disqualified, inasmuch as, he had third issue after the cut off date, and had given a wrong declaration, about having two issues only. This Sohanlal had polled 80 votes, which again has materially affected the result. The next objection was, that

.the returned candidate Gopi Kishan was not eligible to contest the election, because he is accused of the offence under Section 8/18 of the N. D. P. 5. Act, in which he has been granted bail by the High Court, and his case is either pending, or has resulted into conviction, but this fact has not been disclosed. Few other objections were also raised.

4. The election petition was contested by the returned candidate by filing a reply, that the nominations of Pushpa, Prabhu Ram, s/o Mangilal were rightly rejected, and the nominations of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being Sohanlal and Prabhu Ram, s/o Kana Ram were rightly accepted, and the nomination of election petitioner was also rightly rejected. The learned Court below framed five issues; out of them issue No. 1 related to the question, as to whether the nominations of election petitioner Shankerlal, Prabhu Ram, s/o Mangilal and Pushpa Devi were wrongly rejected, and issue No. 2 was as to whether nominations of Sohanlal, defendant No. 2, and another Prabhu Ram, s/o Kana Ram, defendant N