JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J.
1. General Elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly took place in the year 1985 and in 270 Jhunsi Legislative Assembly Constituency election was held on 2-3-1985, in which the respondent was declared as having been elected. The petitioners also submitted their nomination papers for the said Constituency. Whereas, the nomination papers Nos. 15 and 76 of the petitioner No. 1 were rejected, the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 2 were accepted. The contention of the petitioners being that the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1 were improperly rejected, they have filed this petition with a prayer that the election of the respondent be declared void on the grounds, as contained in Clause (C) of Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act 1951') and that a fresh election for 270 Junsi Assembly Constituency be ordered.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 filed two nomination forms Nos. 75 & 76; in one of them the proposer was Sri Vijaya Bahadur and in the other. Sri Om Prakash was the proposer and neither form contained a declaration of his age. As the age was not specified by the petitioner No. 1 in his both the nomination forms the Returning Officer rejected the same for that reason. The case of the petitioner is that the nomination forms of the petitioner No. 1 were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer: that in support of age, the petitioner No. 1 filed a certified copy of the extract of electoral roll and a photostat copy of the High School certificate; that an endorsement with regard to both the documents was made in one of the nomination forms; that the age of the petitioner No. 1 in both the said documents was shown as more than 25 years; that mere omission to specify age in the nomination forms was not a defect of substantial character; that the Returning Officer was under a legal duty to afford an opportunity to the petitioner No. 1 to rectify the mistake before rejecting the nomination forms; that the Returning Officer legally erred in not having considered the proof, produced by the petitioner No. 1 in support of his age and in having rejected the nomination forms, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the mistake; that the petitioner No. 1 having been fully qualified to contest the election and his nomination forms having been illegally rejected by the Returning Officer, the election of the respondent deserves to be declared as void.
3. The respondent filed his written statement denying the contentions of the petitioners. It is denied that the petitioner No. 1 filed any certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll and photostat copy of the High School certificate with the nomination forms. It is stated that the endorsement in one of the nomination forms regarding certified copy of the extract of electoral roll and photostat copy of the High School certificate having been filed with the nomination forms, was inserted after the scrutiny and rejection of the nomination forms. It is averred that the failure to specify age in the nomination forms constituted a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Section 36(4) of the Act, 1951, and, therefore, the Returning Officer was fully justified in having rejected the nomination forms of the petitioner No. 1. It is denied that the Returning Officer was under a legal duty to make a summary enquiry and afford an opportunity to the petitioner No. I to rectify the mistake under Section 36(2)(a). It is averred that the instant case is covered by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36, inasmuch as, no declaration as to age was given in the nomination forms and, consequently Section 33 was not complied with. No declaration regarding the age having been given in the nomination forms, the respondent contended that the nomination papers of the petitioner No. I could not be said to have been completed in the prescribed form within the meaning of Section 33. It is also averred that there being a failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 within the meaning of clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 36, no enquiry was required to be made under Clause (a) of Sub-section 121 of Section 36. It is stated that the documentary proof in support of age could be looked into by the Returning Officer only when a declaration of age was duly made by a candidate. In alternative, the respondent contended that even if it is assumed for argument sake that the certified copy of the extract of electoral roll and photostat copy of the High School certificate were filed with the nomination papers, they could not cure the defect of substantial character that arose in the nomination papers. The contention of the respondent is that both the petitioners are hand in glove and that at the behest of the petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 deliberately omitted to specify his age in the nomination forms with the sinister motive. It is said that the petitioners were sure of the victory of the respondent and, therefore, failure to specify age in the nomination forms was pre-planned to challenge the election of the respondent.
4. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 3-10-1985 : --
1. Whether the nomination papers of petitioner No. 1 were improperly rejected, if so, its effect?
2. Whether the petitioner No. 1 deliberately omitted to fill in the column relating to age in the nomination papers if so, whether he is competent to challenge the validity of the election?
3. Whether the verification of the petition is contrary to law?
4. Are the petitioners entitled to any relief?
FINDINGS.
5. It is stated in paragraph 6(vii) of the election petition that the nomination papers, Exts. 2 and 3, of the petitioner No. 1 were rejected merely on the ground that the declaration about age was not given by the petitioner No. 1 in the relevant column of the Form 2-B. The Returning Officer gave a common reason for rejecting both the nomination papers as follows : --
"The candidate has omitted to specify his age in the nomination paper. Hence as per Chapter VI para 1 j (xiii) in the Handbook for Returning Officer the nomination paper is hereby rejected."
The form of the nomination papers, which is Form 2-B, is reproduced below :--
Nomination paper "Election to the Legislative Assembly of.............. (State) I nominate as a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly from the................... assembly constituency.
Candidate's name.........................
His postal address ...........................
His name is entered at Section No............. in Part No. ............... of the Electoral roll for the .................... assembly constituency.
My name is........................and it is entered at S. No..................... in Part No............ of the electoral roll for the ............... assembly constituency.
Date ......... (Signature of Proposer) I, the abovementioned candidate, assent to this nomination and hereby declare --
(a) that I have completed ... years of age;
(b) that I am sponsored at this election by the............. party;
(c) that the symbols I have chosen are, in order of preference:
(i) ........... (ii) ........... and (iii) .............
*I further declare that I am a member of the ............. caste/tribe which is a scheduled **caste/tribe of the State of.................... in relation to ................ (area) in that State.
(Signature of candidate) Date........
*Score out this paragraph, if not applicable.
*Score out the word not applicable."
This form is in two parts; one is to be filled in by the proposer of the candidate and the other is to be filled in by the candidate himself. There is no controversy regarding the first part of the form, this is to be filled in by the proposer. As appears from (a) above in the second part of the form, the candidate has to declare his age. It is manifest from both the nomination papers, Exts 2 and 3, that the petitioner No. 1 failed to declare his age at (a) above in both the forms Exts. 2 and 3. It is for this reason that the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1 were rejected by the Returning Officer. The contention of the petitioners is that failure to declare age in the second part of the Form 2-B is not a defect of substantial character and the declaration of age is not a mandatory requirement of Section 33 of the Act. 1951, and, therefore, the nomination papers, Exts. 2 and 3, were illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. So the question that falls for consideration is; whether the nomination papers can be legally rejected, if the declaration about age is not made therein.
6. I have heard Sri R. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent. The submission of Sri Srivastava is that there is no mandatory requirement in Section 33 of the Act, 1951, that the declaration about age should DC given by the candidate. He argued that the petitioner No. 1 filed a certified copy of the extract of electoral roll and a photostat copy of the High School certificate along with the nomination papers, in which the age of the petitioner No. 1 has been shown as of 27 years and 33 years respectively and that two documents having been filed in support of age, it could not be said that Section 33 was not complied with. The argument was that the Returning Officer should not have given more weight to the technical omission and that he should have considered the documents, filed with the nomination papers which clearly established the age of the petitioner No. 1. The submission of Sri Srivastava is that failure to specify age at the relevant place in Exts. 2 and 3 is merely a technical error within the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section 41 of Section 33 and that the same is not a defect of substantial character warranting rejection of nomination papers within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36. Also it was argued by Sri Srivastava that before rejecting the nomination papers it was obligatory on the Returning Officer to afford an opportunity to the petitioner No. 1 to satisfy the former as to why the documents filed with the nomination papers to support the age did not constitute sufficient compliance of Section 33. He argued that the matter would have been different, had the Returning Officer concluded after having considered the document that the age of the petitioner No. 1 was below 25 years. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 was more than 25 years of age having been established by the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll and by the photostat copy of the High School certificate, Sri Srivastava argued that rejection of the nomination papers was improper and illegal. On the other hand, Sri Tripathi submitted that the right to election is a statutory right and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 was under a legal duty to fully comply with the statutory requirements and file the nomination papers strictly in accordance with the Statute or the Rules framed thereunder; that Section 33 required that form 2-B duly completed in the prescribed manner should be delivered by a candidate to the Returning Officer and that second part of the Form-2-B, which has to be filled in by a candidate himself, enjoins upon a candidate to make a declaration of age; that filing of documentary evidence to support the age is quite different from declaring age, as required in the statutory Form, viz., 2B; that the Returning Officer was not concerned with the documentary evidence; that to satisfy the constitutional requirement, as stated in Article 173(b) of the Constitution, the petitioner No. 1 was required by rule making authorities to make an unequivocal declaration of age in Form 2-B; that no declaration about age having been given in either nomination paper by the petitioner No. 1, the Returning Officer was under no legal duty to make any enquiry regarding age of the petitioner No 1 before rejecting his nomination papers; that the failure to specify age in the declaratory part of the Form 2-B was a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36 and not a technical omission under the proviso of Sub-section (4) of Section 33, and, therefore, the Returning Officer was legally justified in having rejected both the nomination papers, Exts. 2 and 3, of the petitioner No. 1 Apart from these legal objections, Sn Tripathi also raised certain factual objections that the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll and photostat copy of the High School certificate were not filed with the nomination papers. Exts 2 and 3, by the petitioner No. 1 that the endorsement on one of the nomination papers i.e., Ext. 2. regarding the filing of electoral roll and High School certificate was inserted subsequent to the date of scrutiny, which was held on 7-2-1985 and that the petitioner No. 1 was not present at the time of scrutiny in the room of the Returning Officer. On these submissions, the question that falls for consideration is; whether failure to specify age at the relevant place in the statutory Form 2-B constituted a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36 and whether for that reason the Returning Officer was right in having rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1.
7. In order to appreciate rival submissions of the parties, it is expedient to have a look on the election scheme as contained in the Act 1951. Section 32 of the Act 1951 provides that any person may be nominated a candidate for election to fill a seat, if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the Constitution and this Act. Article 173 of the Constitution of India says that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he --
(a) is a citizen of India;
(b) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age; and
(c) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament.
Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act 1951, provides that on or before the date appointed under Clause (a) of Section 30 each candidate shall, whether in person or by his proposer, deliver to the Returning Officer at the appointed time and at the specified place a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer. Subsection 141 of Section 33 enjoins upon the Returning Officer to satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer, as entered in the nomination papers, are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls. Proviso to subsection (4) of Section 33 provides that no misnomer or inaccurate description or clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of the candidate or his proposer or any other person, or in regard to any place, mentioned in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper and any error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination papers shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll or the nomination papers and that such technical or clerical-error shall be overlooked by the Returning Officer. Sections 34 and 35 are not very relevant for the purpose of this case. Section 36 deals with the scrutiny of nominations. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 enjoins upon the Returning Officer to examine the nomination papers on the date of scrutiny and decide all objections, which may be made to any nomination, and it confers powers on the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers after a summary inquiry, either on his own motion or on the basis of any objection, if he thinks necessary on the grounds, specified in clause (a), (b) or (c). Sub-section (4) of Section 36 empowers the Returning Officer to reject a nomination paper, if it suffers from a defect of a substantial character, otherwise it prevents the Returning Officer from rejecting a nomination paper. Sub-section (6) of Section 36 requires the Returning Officer to endorse on each nominated paper his decision accepting or rejecting nomination paper and record reasons, briefly, in case of rejection. Sub-section (7) of Section 36 provides that a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence to the fact that the person-referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency. Subsequent provisions deal with other matters which are not referred to herein, as their reference is not necessary for the purpose of this case.
8. Whether or not it is mandatory for a candidate to declare his age in the nomination paper this question has to be seen in the light of the above scheme. The Constitution of India does not permit any elector, who, has not completed 25 years of age, for contesting election for Legislative Assembly. Form 2-B, as reproduced above, is a statutory form of nomination paper and that enjoins upon the candidate to declare his age. So, it is mandatory for a candidate to make a declaration of his age in the manner, as prescribed in the statutory form. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 failed to give a declaration of age, as required by the second part of Form 2-B, which has to be signed by the candidate himself. The question is; whether it is open to a candidate to declare his age in the manner other than one prescribed by the statutory form. Sri Tripathi relying on Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983 argued that a right to elect is neither a fundamental right, nor a common law right. It is pure and simple a statutory right The Supreme Court observed :--
"It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statutes creating it."
From this authority, it is clear that for exercising statutory rights, it is absolutely necessary to carry out the statutory provisions and the rules framed by the rule making authorities thereunder. How the requirement as contained in Article 173(b) of the Constitution, is to be complied with.
9. The mode of fulfilling the requirement, as contained in Article 173(b) of the Constitution, has been set out in the Form 2B, which enjoins upon a candidate to declare his precise age. The declaration of age in the manner, as prescribed by the statutory form 2B by a candidate, is mandatory and it is not open to any candidate to find out some other way to comply with this requirement. Moreover, the law requires the declaration of age by a candidate under his signature and filing of documentary evidence to support the fact that the candidate was of either 25 years or more than 25 years is no compliance of law. If any objection is raised against the age declared in the Form 2-B by a candidate, then the latter may show materials to support his version relating to age, but otherwise production of documentary evidence in support of age does not tantamount to a declaration, which is required to be made by a candidate himself in the Form 2-B. Why the declaration of age is so necessary in the Form 2-B? The reason is not far to seek. One who makes a declaration is bound by that If a candidate does not declare his age, but files merely documentary evidence to show his age and the Returning Officer relying upon that evidence comes to the conclusion that the candidate possesses requisite age and ultimately it transpires that the documentary evidence furnished by the candidate was not reliable or that showed the wrong age, then the question is what will be the responsibility of the candidate himself. In such a situation, the candidate may get away saying that the Returning Officer satisfied himself from the documents, which the former obtained in good faith. It is to plug this kind of situation that the rule making authorities thought it proper to take a declaration of age from the candidate himself. If a declaration is incorrect, then the candidate who made it, will himself be responsible. Completion of 25 years of age is one of the eligibility conditions that has been prescribed by the Constitution and full care has been taken under the law to see this constitutional requirement is fully complied with by a candidate before he is declared fit to contest the election. Though the respondent has disputed that the certified copy of the extract of electoral roll and the photostat copy of the High School certificate were tiled with the nomination papers by the petitioner No. 1, but even if this contention of the latter in regard to both the documents is assumed to be correct, there is no compliance of law, inasmuch as, no declaration of age was made under his signature by the petitioner No. 1 in either of the nomination papers. If the declaration of age is mandatory, as it is in view of the aforesaid findings, it could not be obligatory on the Returning Officer to consider the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll and the photostat copy of the High School certificate and treat them either as a declaration of age or a substitute thereof. So long a declaration is not made, the Returning Officer is under no legal obligation to look into any other material to come to the conclusion whether the constitutional requirement as to age has been satisfied. The matter may be looked at from another angle also. The age of the petitioner No. 1 varied in both the aforesaid documents. Whereas, the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll shows the age of 27 years, the age of the petitioner No. 1 as per High School certificate is that of 33 years. Form 2-B requires a declaration of precise age. If the contention of Sri Srivastava that the Returning Officer ought to have considered the documentary evidence allegedly filed along with the nomination papers is taken to be correct, then the Returning Officer will be required to adjudicate first whether the age of 27 years is correct or the age of 33 years or some other age, and then only he would have taken the decision whether the constitutional requirement as to age was fulfilled by the petitioner No. 1. The law does not call upon the Returning Officer to first sit as an arbitrator in the matter of age and then take the decision as to what is the precise age of the petitioner No. 1. If Section 33 is complied with, in that a duly completed Form 2-B is filed making the declaration of age and if any objection is raised against the age so having been declared in the Form 2-B by the candidate, then only the law requires from the Returning Officer to hold a summary enquiry under Section 36(2)(a) and take up a decision on the objection and dispose of the objection by taking up a decision as to the age. If age has not at all been declared in the Form 2-B by the candidate and, consequently, the Form 2-B is delivered as not being completed in the prescribed manner, as required by Section 33(a), then it is not obligatory on the Returning Officer to hold an enquiry, as contemplated by clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 36. Thus, there are two classes of cases :
(a) where the Form 2-B is delivered having made the declaration of age and an objection is raised against the age so declared; and (2) where the Form 2-B shorn of the declaration of age is delivered.
The enquiry under Section 36(2)(a) can be made only in regard to the cases, falling under class (1), but there is no scope of enquiry in regard to cases, falling in class (2). I, therefore, do not agree with the submission of Sri Srivastava that the Returning Officer was wrong in having rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1, without making an enquiry under Section 36(2)(a). As the instant case falls under class (2), the only question for consideration was whether the failure to specify age in both the nomination papers constituted a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36 and if that is so, then the Returning Officer will be fully justified in having rejected both the nomination papers Exts. 2 and 3. Exactly on the same facts, a question arose before the Supreme Court in the case of Brijendralal Gupta v. Jawala Prasad, AIR 1960 SC 1049. This question was then discussed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the said decision and then it was held : --
"Once the alleged non-compliance is proved, the defective nomination falls to be accepted or rejected according as the defect is of an unsubstantial or of a substantial character.
Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 itself would justify the rejection of the nomination paper provided of course that the defect arising from the non-compliance in question is of a substantial character."
9A. Undoubtedly, the failure to make a declaration as to age is non-compliance of Section 33, because this provision calls upon a candidate to deliver his nomination paper completed in the prescribed form. Without the declaration having been made, the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1 could not be said to have been delivered as completed in the prescribed form within the meaning of section 33.
10. Then, the question is whether omission to specify age in the nomination papers, Exts. 2 and 3, on the part of the petitioner No. 1 constitutes a defect of substantial character within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36? As already held, right to elect is a statutory right and this right can be exercised only when the Statute or the rules framed thereunder are fully complied with. In this case, the constitutional requirement relating to age, as stated in Article 173(b), which is to be complied with in a prescribed manner, has not been established, inasmuch as, no declaration of age had been made by the petitioner No. 1 in Exts. 2 and 3. Non-compliance of statutory procedure on the facts and circumstances of this case surely results into a defect of a substantial character under Sub-section (4) of Section 36. To reinforce his argument that omission to specify age in the Form 2-B is a substantial defect, Sri Tripathi, drew my attention to the proviso to Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The proviso to Rule 4 shows that failure to complete the declaration as to symbols in nomination forms, in Form 2-A or Form 2-B, shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 36. This is a pointer that rule making authorities did not regard the defect of omission to specify age in the Form-2-B as of unsubstantial character, otherwise they would have said so, as they have pointedly said regarding the failure to make declaration relating to symbols. Then, Sri Srivastava relying on Ganu Ram v. Rikhi Ram Kaundal, AIR 1984 SC 1513 argued that omission to specify age in Form 2-B on the part of the petitioner No. 1 was merely a technical or clerical error in view of the proviso to section (4) of Section 33 and not a substantial defect under Sub-section (4) of Section 36 and that being so the omission was such which would have been rectified, had the Returning Officer given an opportunity to do so. In the case of Ganu Ram (supra), the appellant (1st respondent), who belonged to Scheduled Caste, was declared elected. He had made a declaration to the effect that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, but the omission was that the sub-caste, which he belonged to was not mentioned. His sub-caste was 'Lohar', admittedly, covered by Scheduled Caste. It is on account of this omission, his election was challenged. The High Court upholding this objection of the petitioner on the question of validity of nomination paper, set aside the election of the appellant and held that the nomination paper of the appellant could not be regarded as valid in view of the fact that it did not contain a declaration by the appellant specifying the particular caste, of which he was a member. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the nomination paper filed by the appellant was valid. In that case a certificate of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was also produced and made as annexure to his nomination paper. That certificate clearly showed that the appellant belonged to the Lohar caste, in particular. Taking into consideration the fact that the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was duly annexed to his nomination paper by the appellant, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the nomination paper filed by the appellant was not valid and its acceptance by the Returning Officer was improper. In my view, this authority is misplaced by Sri Srivastava, as the appellant in that case made a declaration that he belonged to scheduled Caste and the only omission was that sub-caste, namely Lohar, which he belonged to was not mentioned in the nomination paper. So, that was not a case where the declaration pertaining to Scheduled Caste was absent, but that declaration having been made, the appellant simply omitted to mention his sub-caste, for which he annexed the caste certificate, duly issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to the nomination paper, filed with the Returning Officer. In the instant petition, the petitioner No. 1 made no declaration absolutely as to age and, therefore, the facts of the instant case are quite different from the facts of the case of Ganu Ram (supra). Moreover in Ganu Ram (supra), the Supreme Court has not overruled its earlier decision in the case of Brijendralal Gupta (supra) and, therefore, the latter still holds the field. On the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the forgoing findings, I unhesitantly conclude that the omission to specify age in the nomination papers, Exts. 2 and 3, constituted a defect of substantial character under Sub-section (4) of Section 36, on ground of which the Returning Officer was fully justified in having rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1.
11. Lastly, Sri Srivastava argued that though in the written statement, the respondent denied the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll having been filed with his nomination papers, but the Returning Officer (R. W. 6) stated that the same was there before him at the time of scrutiny. It was argued that from the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll itself, it was evident that the petitioner No. 1 satisfied the constitutional requirement that he was more than 25 years of age and was, consequently, eligible to contest the election and, therefore, rejection of the nomination papers under Sub-section (4) of Section 36 for non-compliance of Section 33(1) was bad in law. I do not find any force in this submission. As already held, the Returning Officer was not concerned with the proof of the age, but the statutory form made it obligatory on the petitioner No. 1 to make a declaration of age. Otherwise also, the certified copy of the extract of electoral roll cannot be said to have conclusively proved that the petitioner No. 1 was 27 years old at the time of filing of nomination papers. Section 36(7) is to be read with Section 19. The electoral roll, prima facie, proves that a person whose name appears therein is an elector. Section 19 lays down conditions of registration and provides that subject to the foregoing provisions of the Part-III? every person who--
(a) is not less than twenty-one years of age on the qualifying date, and
(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency, shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency. So the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll only furnishes the proof that may be conclusive to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 was 21 years of age and he ordinarily resided in the constituency, mentioned in electoral roll. The copy of the electoral roll cannot be the conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 was 27 years of age, as mentioned therein. To satisfy the constitutional requirement, the petitioner No. 1 was to give a declaration that his age was 25 years and not the proof, that conclusive proved that his age was not less than 21 years. (sic)
12. As the conclusion that nomination papers Exts. 2 and 3 were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer, can be based on legal grounds, there is no need to take up the factual grounds whether the petitioner No. 1 was present before the Returning Officer on the date of the scrutiny and whether he inserted the red encircled endorsement on Ext. 2 in the same subsequent to the date of scrutiny. Even if the said endorsement were there right from inception and if the petitioner No. 1 was present before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny, the result would have been the same that nomination papers Exts. 2 and 3, are invalid.
13. The result of this finding is that the petitioners are not entitled to the declaration prayed for by them and the election of the respondent cannot be declared to be void.
Issue No. 2.
14. In paragraph 28 of the written statement, the respondent contended that the "petitioner No. 1 is a henchman and supporter of the petitioner No. 2" and the former deliberately omitted the column of age in the nomination papers from being filed in with a view to challenge the election of the respondent. The respondent examined Sri Laxmi Narain Yadav (R. W. 4) and Sri Mahanand Singh (R. W. 5) in this connection. Sri Laxmi Narain Yadav (R. W. 4) deposed that he had seen both the petitioners having the conversation regarding the election at the clinic of the petitioner No. 1, but their conversation was not audible to him. Sri Mahanand Singh (R. W. 5) stated that he was told by the petitioner No. 1 at the time of filing nomination paper that the column of age was left blank by mistake and the petitioner No. 1 had the intention from before to file the petition. From these statements no conspiracy between the petitioners has been proved and, therefore, the plea of the respondent that the petitioner No. 1 has no right to challenge the election, as the defect in the nomination paper was a result of conspiracy or mala fide design is not substantiated. The issue is, therefore, decided in negative.
Issue No. 3.
15. The only submission of Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent, was that verification was made on a separate page and not on page 12 of the election petition, which is the last page of the petition. Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. The burden of the submission of Sri Tripathi is that the verification made on a separate page cannot be said to have been made at the foot as required by Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not agree with the submission. Order VI, Rule 15 does not mean that the verification should have been done at the foot of the plaint, without any gap, and that should be written in continuity of the preceding paragraphs. Verification is required to be made at the foot of the plaint, for the simple reason that what is to be verified is the preceding paragraphs of the plaint. It is immaterial whether the verification is made in continuation of the preceding paragraph or on a separate page after the plaint ended. So I am of the considered view that there is no flaw in verification. The issue is, therefore- decided in negative.
Issue No. 4.
16. The nomination papers Exts. 2 and 3, having been rightly rejected, the election of the respondent is valid and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
17. In the result, the election petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. The remaining amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners on their making proper application to that effect.