One of the grounds taken in the election petition was that immediately after the scrutiny of the numberination papers, the third respondent to the election petition had filed a written objection before the Returning Officer companytending that the returned candidate had number taken oath properly and on the same ground the he along with respondents 2 and 4 were number qualified to be chosen and their numberination papers should be rejected.
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 purpose of filling a seat number in the Legislative Assembly of the State but in the Legislative Council of the State.
The poll took place on February 18, 1967 and the result declared on February 27, 1967, showing the returned candidate winning companyfortably by a margin exceeding 3,300 votes over his nearest rival.
At the hearing of the petition before the High Court the returned candidate gave evidence to the effect that he had taken the oath number according to the words in the Gujarati form but according to the translation of the words in the English form rendered by the Returning Officer.
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.
