The Returning Officer has the power to reject a nomination till such time as the list of validly nominated candidates has not been made and affixed to his notice board.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), which is directed against the order of the election Tribunal, Chhindwara, dismissing the appellant's election petition for declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 to the House of the People from the Chhindwara Parliamentary Constituency was void.

( 2 ) THE election Petition was filed by Lekhram (P. W. 4) who was an elector on the roll of the Chhindwara Parliamentary Constituency from Parasia. The Election tribunal granted him leave under Section 109 of the Act to withdraw the election petition. Thereafter, the appellant, who was respondent No. 6 in the ejection petition, was, on his application under Section 110 (3) (c) of the Act, substituted by the Election Tribunal in his place and allowed to continue the proceedings.

( 3 ) THE Chhindwara Parliamentary Constituency is a double-member constituency, one of the seats being general and the other reserved for a member of the scheduled tribes. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7, respondent No. 11 and the appellant were candidates for the general seat, and respondents Nos. 8 to 10, for the reserved seat. No objections were raised to their nomination. Subsequently respondents Nos. 2 and 4, and the appellant withdrew their candidature.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 11 also filed a nomination paper for election to the State legislative Assembly from the Parasia Legislative Assembly Constituency. An objection was raised to his nomination under Section 7 (e) of the Act on the ground that he held an office of profit under the Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. , in the capital of which the State Government owned not less than 25 per cent. share. That objection was upheld by the Returning Officer and his nomination was rejected under Section 36 (2) (a) of the Act. The Returning Officer thereafter also rejected his nomination as a candidate for election to the House of the People.

( 5 ) THE election of respondent No. 1 was contested on the following grounds :

(i) That he was guilty of corrupt practices either personally or through his agents, or through other persons with his consent; (ii) That the rejection of the nomination of respondent No. 11 was improper; and (iii) That the nomination of respondent No. 3 was improperly accepted, although he was below the statutory age limit,

The contentions regarding the corrupt practices and improper acceptance of the nomination of respondent No. 3 were not accepted by the Election Tribunal for want of evidence. These findings are not contested by the appellant. The only point for decision in the appeal is whether the nomination of respondent No. 11 was improperly rejected.

( 6 ) THE case of the appellant was that the Returning Officer had at first accepted the nomination paper of respondent No. 11 for the House of the People as valid and written the word 'valid' thereon, but when he allowed the objection to his nomination as a candidate for election to the State Legislative Assembly, he changed the word Valid' into 'invalid' and rejected his nomination paper for the house of the People, which he had no power to do under the Act. On merits he denied that respondent No. 11 held any office of profit under the Rewa Coal Fields ltd. , or that the appropriate Government (in this case the Union Government) had any share in the capital of that company.

( 7 ) THE Election Tribunal found that the Union Government owned more than 25 per cent. share in the capital of the Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. and that respondent No. 11 held an office of profit under that company. In this view, it held that respondent No. 11 was disqualified for membership of the House of the People under Section 7 (e) of the Act and accordingly his nomination was not improperly rejected. It, however, also held that the Returning Officer had at first accepted the nomination and consequently he had no power to reject it subsequently, but as this only amounted to non-compliance with the