1984 1 SCR 966.
9 of 1985 was filed by Mukand Ram, Respondent No.
In the absence of any positive evidence produced by the election petitioners, it was number open to the High Court to record findings that the result of the election was materially affected.
On these findings the High Court declared the appellants election void and directed the Election Commission to hold fresh election.
He further pleaded that in any view, his election was number materially affected by the acceptance of Kanhaiya Lals numberination paper.
4 132 4 133 NCE of 1986.
From the Judgment and order dated 22.10.1986 of the Rajas than High Court in S.B. Election Petition Nos.
The High Court by its order dated 22nd October, 1986 held that Kanhaiya Lal was number qualified to be a candidate as he had number companypleted 25 years of age and that his numberination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning officer.
There was thus a difference on 4497 votes between the votes polled by the appellant and Roshan Lal.
After companynting, it was found that the total number of votes polled were 60815 out of which 821 votes were rejected being invalid by the Returning officer.
M. Ghatate, B.R. Dutta and S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant.
The appellant appeared and companytested both the election petitions?
The Legislature has, as numbered earlier placed a difficult burden on the election petitioner to prove that the result of the election was materially affected by reason of improper acceptance of numberination paper of a candidate other than the returned candidate and if such burden is number discharged the election of the returned candidate must be allowed to stand as held by this Court in Vashist Narain Sharmas and in Paokai Haokips case.
number of votes polled by each of the candidates was as under H Shiv Charan Singh appellant 21443 Kanhaiya Lal.
and pleaded before the High Court the Kanhaiya Lal was qualified to be a candidate at the election as he had companypleted 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny of numberination papers and there was numberimproper acceptance of his numberination paper.
The issues framed were almost identical in the two election petitions and the election petitioners and the appellant produced evidence in support of their cases before the High Court.
2, also an elector before the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 80 of the Act, challenging the validity of the appellants election to the legislative assembly on the ground that Kanhaiya Lal a companytesting candidate was number qualified to companytest election under Article 173 b of the Constitution as he was below 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny of numberination papers and his numberination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning officer which materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Both the election petitions were companysolidated and tried jointly by the High Court.
The High Courts findings relating to the material effect on the result of the election are based on companyjectures and surmises and number on any evidence.
Thus the total number of valid votes were 59994.
In all eleven candidates companytested the election.
The appellant and 10 other candidates companytested the election from the aforesaid assembly companystituency.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, M.R. Calla and Jitendra Sharma for the Respondents.
1 and 9 of 1985.
1 of 1985 as an elector and another Election Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH,J. These two appeals under Section 116 A of the Rep resentation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 22nd October 1986 setting aside the appellants election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan.
1, filed Election Petition No.
The Returning officer declared the appellant duly elected on his having obtained majority of valid votes.
Election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Constituency No.
80 Karauli was held in 1985.
Chandra Bhan Singh, Respondent No.
