The Returning Officer was merely called to produce some documents but he was number put on oath number was he asked any question to companyroborate the testimony of the returned candidate.
Nomination papers were filed by several persons including the returned candidate and the scrutiny thereof was made on January 21, 1967.
2 of 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Bishan Narain and D.N. Misra, for the respondent No.
The poll took place on February 18, 1967 and the result declared on February 27.
Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant.
1180 of 1968.
The relevant facts may be stated as follows The numberification of the Governor of Gujarat under s. 15 2 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 for the purpose of elections to the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly was issued on January 13, 1967.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The only question raised in this appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing an election petition is, whether the returned candidate was number qualified to be chosen to fill a seat of the State Legislative Assembly inasmuch as he did number subscribe to an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution as prescribed under Art.
173 thereof.
The relevant difference for the purpose of this appeal between the two ,forms lay in this that the words Legislative Assembly in the form in English were translated in Gujarati form as Rajya Sabha and the appellants companytention before the High Court and before us rested solely on the use of this word which according to learned companynsel went to show that the oath that was taken was for the purposes of filling a seat number in the legislative assembly of the State but in the Legislative Council of the State.
Appeal under s. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated January 17, 18, 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in Election Petition No.
