These two election petitions, namely, Election Petitions Nos. 3 and 4 of 1985, challenge the election of the first respondent Thiru M.G. Ramachandran from Andipatti Assembly Constituency. E.P. No. 3 of 1985 has been filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates who lost his election by a margin of 3148 votes. E. P. No. 4 of 1985 is by one of the voters. By my order dt/- 14th Aug. 1986, Applications Nos. 4559 and 4560 of 1985 were allowed and several paragraphs of the election petitions were struck out, under Order VIR. 16 of the C.P.C. while paragraphs 24 and 30 were struck out under S.83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, what remained to be examined were the allegations made in para 16, 17 and 18 of the election petitions. They deal with the scope of the notification issued by the Election Commission of India in S.O. 1111 dated 18th March, 1968 in pursuance of Cl.(a) of Arts.84 and 173 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners would contend that in so far as the first respondent was on the relevant date, confined to bed in Broklyn Hospital in New York, it is only para. 2(c) of the notification that would apply. Further, the Election Commission issued a telex message on 19/11/1984 under which it instructed the Ambassador of India or the Consulate General of India in New York as the case may be to authorise one of the Indian Medical Practitioners attending on the first respondent to administer the oath or affirmation to him. Therefore, it was contended, para 2(c) of the notification would exclude the operation of para 2(d) of the notification. In any event, the authorisation under the telex message dt/- 19/11/1984 is not for the Ambassador or the Consulate General of India but only for one of the Indian Medical Practitioners attending on the first respondent. Hence, the acceptance of the nomination would be void. These allegations were countered by the first respondent stating that there is no question of exclusion of one paragraph by the other. Nor again, the telex message would in any way take away the right of the first respondent to make and subscribe the oath or affirmation before the Officer who is empowered under the notification. It was under these circumstances I held in para 105 of my order dt/- 14th Aug. 1986 as follows :-

"But what requires to be noted is, that under the terms of the Telex, which I have already extracted, the authorisation is for the Medical Practitioner and not for the Ambassador or the Consulate Representative. In such a case the question is whether it is para 2(c) or para 2(d) of the notification which would apply. Then again, if on the request of the first respondent a special authorisation has come to be issued, still whether resort could be had to para 2(d). These are issues which require to be relegated to trial." *

Hence an issue was framed on 18/11/1986 to the following effect :

"Whether the nomination of the first respondent is liable to be rejected for having complied with R.2(d) of the Rules and Orders under the Constitution (S.O. 1111 dt/- 18-3-1968) ?" *

2. Mr. N. Ganapathy, learned counsel for the election petitioners refers to Art.173 of the Constitution and contends that the said article while prescribing the qualification of a period to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State talks of the following requirements, namely (i) Citizen of India; (ii) Makes and subscribes oath in affirmation; (iii) before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission and (iv) the oath or affirmation should be as set out in the Third Schedule. Therefore this Article confers power on the Election Commission to authorise a person in that behalf this is a power available under S.14 of the General Clauses Act. If the said Section is read with Art.367 of the Constitution, this power could be exercised as often and as is necessary. Merely because a notification, in this case, Notification S.O. 1111 dt/- 18th March, 1968, had come to be iss