Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr. Manendra Nath Rai, petitioner, who appears in person, Mr. Manish Mathur, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr. Prashant Singh Atal, who has put in appearance on behalf of second respondent.

2. The afore-captioned election petition has been preferred by Manendra Nath Rai under Section 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (in short, referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby the petitioner seeks to declare the election of second respondent (Ashutosh Tandon ‘Gopal Ji’) as null and void.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are as under :

4. Petitioner-Manendra Nath Rai filed his nomination as an independent candidate on 27.8.2014, whereas respondent No. 2-Ashutosh Tandon ‘Gopal Ji’ filed his nomination as a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party to contest the bye-election of Legislative Assembly, 2014 from 173 East Assembly Constituency Lucknow. As per the election calender notified by the Election Commission, the last date of making nomination by the respective candidates was 27.8.2014 (Wednesday). After scrutinizing nomination papers/forms submitted by the candidate(s), the Returning Officer found that the petitioner had not indicated correct information in Columns 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 on the Affidavit of Form-26 as the petitioner had only put cross sign (x) in the aforesaid Columns and, accordingly, the petitioner was required to furnish correct information in the aforesaid columns by 3.00 PM on the last date of filing nomination paper i.e. 27.8.2014. As the petitioner failed to furnish the required information to the Returning Officer, therefore, the Returning Officer had rejected nomination papers filed by the petitioner on 28.8.2014 and informed him accordingly.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers on 28.8.2014, the petitioner has filed the instant election petition on the ground that nomination paper of the election petitioner for the said election was erroneously rejected and thereby election of the respondent No. 2 is fit to be declared as void.

6. Submission of the petitioner, who appeared in person, is that he filled the columns in the nomination papers which were related to him and in rest of the columns, he put cross (x) sign as per instructions mentioned in Form-26 annexed at page No. 22 of the writ petition, wherein it has been mentioned ¼tks ykxw u gks mls dkV ns½ on the day of scrutiny i.e. 28.8.2014, nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected only on the grounds that the petitioner had not indicated correct information in columns 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 on the Affidavit (Form-26) as the petitioner had only put in the aforesaid columns cross (x) sign. He submitted that Section 36 (2) of the Act, 1951 deals with the ground of rejection of the nomination papers and none of the grounds mentioned in Section 36 (2) of the Act, 1951 are applicable in the case of the petitioner, as no inquiry was done by the Returning Officer prior to rejection of the nomination paper.

7. Elaborating his submission, petitioner-in-person has submitted that Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951 prescribes that the Returning Officer will not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial nature but in the present case, the ground on which nomination paper has been rejected by the Returning Officer is not of a substantial nature as he had only mentioned the information which was related to him and in rest of the column, he put cross sign, therefore, the action of the Returning Officer is contrary to the provision of Section 36 (4) of the Act, 1951. To strengthen his submission, reliance has been placed upon Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others, AIR 2014 SC 2069.

8. In the oppugation, Mr. Manish Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-Returning