K.S. Jhaveri, J.

In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions preferred by the returned candidate (in short 'RC') whose election has been set aside by the order of the Election Tribunal which judgment and order was subject matter of the petitions.

3. The broad facts of the case are that the present appellants being petitioners in the election petitions, one by election petitioner Snehlata (Election Petition No.167/2016) and the other by Smt. Sulbha Sinsinwar (Election Petition No.166/2016).

4. For convenience of the court, the facts of Smt. Snehlata are taken into consideration. Snehlata, the election petitioner-appellant herein filed an election petition alleging that the RC's nomination form for contesting on the post of member of ward number 14, Zila Parishad Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the Ward No.14') had been improperly and collusively accepted by the Returning Officer despite her having furnished wrong and insufficient information in respect of the criminal cases pending against her. It was also alleged that the returning officer overlooking the fact of the RC having furnished insufficient details with regard to the survey number, total area and demarcation of the immovable properties both commercial and residential belonging to her and her spouse and dependent children improperly accepted her nomination form. It was further alleged that the information supplied by the RC as warranted in form 4(d) appended to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1994') as also in the affidavit filed in support thereto suffered from the same lacunae, suffered a mismatch and some portion of the affidavit were even incomplete and hence the nomination form should have been rejected for not being duly filled as required by Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1994. It was further submitted that the affidavit filed by the RC before the Returning Officer, required to be furnished in a prescribed format, was not so furnished. The election petitioner's case was thus that in the circumstances, the nomination of RC ought to have been rejected in terms of Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1994 which was not so illegally and improperly done. It was also asserted that the nomination form of the RC was also otherwise vitiated for lack of details which tantamounted to corrupt practice. The RC was also alleged to be ineligible to contest the election with reference to the eligibility prescribed therefor under the Act of 1994. It was also submitted that even otherwise the RC was not entitled to contest the election in issue for the reason that she was not an ordinary resident of village Pidawali Gram Panchayat Khohara, Panchayat Samiti and Tehsil Bayana District Bharatpur, and hence was not a lawfully registered voter of ward No.14, Zila Parishad Bharatpur. Instead she was alleged to be a resident of Rohini Nagar New Delhi, her addresses for the last several years where she was stated to have in fact exercised her right to vote in the elections to the Loksabha Delhi, Delhi Assembly election, as also the Delhi Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the election of RC as a member of Ward No.14 Pidawali District Bharatpur was thus liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. The first election petition challenges the election of ward no.14 wherein the contest was between the applicant in the election petition namely Snehlata referred hereinabove who is appellant and between the returned candidate respondent no.1 who has been declared elected.

6. The election tribunal while considering the matter has framed different issues which reads as under:-

6- mHk; i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij Lusgy