The main legal point established in the judgment is that the election petition was maintainable on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination of a third candidate, and the wrongful rejection of the nomination paper led to the declaration of the election as void.

( 1 ) THIS election petition has been filed by one of the candidates to the election held on 21st february 2002 for the membership of the U. P. Legislative Assembly.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the returned candidate and his election has been challenged on the ground of wrong rejection of the nomination of a third prospective candidate namely, Sita Ram.

( 3 ) THE ground is covered by Section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. For ready reference the relevant part of the siaid provision is reproduced below: 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (I) Subject to the provision of Sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion (a ). . . (b ). . . (c ). . . that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or. . . the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. "

( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 100 is not relevant for this case.

( 5 ) WHEN this election petition was heard exparte before issuing notice to the respondent, the following order was passed.

"the question involved in this election petition is about interpretation of the words "any nomination" used in Section 100 (1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election petitioner was a candidate at the election. His nomination paper was not rejected. He is challenging the said election, in which the respondent has been returned, on the ground that the nomination of some other candidate (Sita Ram) had been wrongly rejected. After the scrutiny date is over, there is a time limit during which a candidate can withdraw his nomination. If that third person has nor raised any objection against rejection of his nomination it can reasonably he treated to be abandonment of his candidature by that third person, which would be akin to withdrawal of the candidature, and therefore prima facie it would not be open to the election petitioner to challenge the validity of the election on the ground of wrong rejection of the nomination of a third person. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to study the matter. List this case in the next supplementary cause list. "

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 15th May 2002, the following order was passed, by the court directing issue of notice.

"in reply to the objection raised by the order of this Court dated 8. 5. 2002, about the maintainability of this election petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Som Nath v. Bikram reported in AIR 1999 SC 3417. Prima facie decision of the Supreme Court aforesaid appears to be complete reply to the aforesaid objection of this Court. In the circumstances issue notice by ordinary process as well as registered post fixing 30th July 2002. Publication to be done in a newspaper selected and specified by the Registrar General within three weeks from today. "

( 7 ) WRITTEN statement was filed by the respondents and the following issues were framed on 30th october 2003.

"heard counsel for the parties. Following issues are framed: 1. Whether the petitioner can maintain this election petition on the ground of improper rejection of nomination paper of another candidate who has not chosen to challenge the fejection? 2. Whether this election petition is not maintainable on account of nonjoinder of necessary party as mentioned in para 30/34 of the written statement? 3. Whether this election petition is barred by Section 100 of the Representation of the People act as mentioned in para 31 of the written statement? 4. Whether the election petition is time barred? 5. Whether the nomination paper of Sita Ram was wrongly rejected? 6. Whether the election of respondent No. 1 is liable to be declared void in view of wrong rejection of the nomination paper of Sita Ram? list on 17th November 2003 for evidence of the election, petitioner".

( 8 ) FROM the side of the election petitioner, two witnesses P. W. 1 Ambika (the petitioner himself)and P. W. 2 Sita Ram were examined. 5 docum