The respondents other than respondent No.
This companytention was negatived by the High Court because on the scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Judge took the view that there was numbertime gap between making of the oath or affirmation and filing the same on the one hand and the filing of the numberination papers of respondent No.
The last date for filing of numberination papers was February 6, 1985.
1 was duly declared elected at the said election.
1 on the ground that his numberination paper was wrongly accepted, that the objection filed by the appellant against the numberination papers of respondent No.
It is companymon ground that at the election the appellant secured only a few hundred votes whereas respondent No.
1 and several other candidates filed their numberinations.
1 who was the successful candidate obtained votes exceeding fifteen thousand.
The day of scrutiny was filed as February 7, 1985.
1 as well as other candidates.
This objection was rejected by the Returning Officer taking the view that there was numbertime gap between the making of the oath and the filing of the numberination papers.
In the election petition the appellant has challenged the election of respondent No.
1 on the ground that, as they had sworn the affidavit making oath or affirmation and filed the same prior to the filing of their respective numberination papers, their numberination papers were liable to be rejected under Sub rule c of Rule 10 in Chapter IV of the Hand Book for Candidates published by the Chief Election Commissioner and as held by this Court in Sheikh Abdul Rehman v. Jagat Ram Aryan .
The term of the U.P. Legislative Assembly elected at that time has already expired, fresh elections have already been held and results declared.
The dispute relates to the elections held in 1985 fbr election of members to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
1 and the other candidates should have been upheld by the Returning Officer and the said numberinations declared invalid.
Respondent No.
On the day of the scrutiny the appellant filed an objection against the numberination of all other candidates including respondent No.
Thereafter several of the candidates withdrew their numberinations and those of them who did number withdraw their numberinations have been joined as respondents to the petition.
On that day the appellant, respondent No.
H. Kania, J. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No.
12 of 1985.
1 are absent although served by substituted service.
