Sikri, J. - (1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951-hereinafter referred to as the Act - from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing Election Petition No. 8 of 1967 filed by the appellant Pashupati Nath Singh hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. In order to appreciate the point arising before us it is necessary to state the relevant facts.
(2.) The petitioner stood as a candidate for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The election to that Assembly from the Dumrao Assembly Constituency was held during the last general election as per the following schedule: "(a) Date of filing nomination papers - 13th January, 1967 to 20th January,1967. (b) Date of scrutiny of nomination papers -21st January, 1967. (c) Last date of withdrawal of candidatures -23rd January, 1967. (d) Date of poll 17th February, 1967. (e) Date of counting of votes - 23rd February, 1967. (f) Date of declaration of result of the election - 23rd February, 1967". The petitioner filed his nomination paper before the Returning Officer at Buxar on January 16, 1967. Eight other candidates, including the respondent Harihar Prasad Singh, filed their nomination papers before the Returning Officer on different dates between January 13, l967, and January 20, 1967. On January 21, 1967, the nomination papers were taken up for scrutiny, when the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner and accepted the nomination papers of the remaining eight candidates. On February 17, 1967, the poll was held and the respondent, Shri Harihar Prasad Singh, secured the largest number of votes, namely, 14,539, and was accordingly declared, elected. Thereupon the petitioner presented election petition in the Patna High Court for a declaration that the election of the respondent is void on the ground that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.
(3.) The High Court held that the nomination of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that he was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the State Legislature since he had not made and subscribed the requisite oath or affirmation as enjoined by Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution, either before the scrutiny of nominations or even subsequently on the date of scrutiny.;