I.D. Dua, J. - (1.) THE short question raised in this appeal from the -order of the Election Tribunal is whether the nomination papers of Shri Gajju Ram were improperly rejected and whether the election of Shri Bansl Ram (Appellant in this Court) is, therefore, void.
(2.) THE controversy arises out of the election contest relating to Seraj (Reserve) constituency district Kangra of Punjab Vidhan Sabha. It is common ground that Gajju Ram was also a candidate who had filed his nomination papers for contesting the election in question and his nomination papers were rejected on the ground that he was not 25 years of age on the qualifying date. It may in passing be noticed, though it does not affect the controversy before us, that Bansi Ram the successful candidate was pitched against two other contestants Jit Ram and Pulku; Jit Ram having secured only 3929 votes and Bansi Ram 5755. On 29 -1 -1962, the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer passed the following order; I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declare as follows: The entries in the nomination paper have been found to be correct, except to age entry that has been contested (by Shri Bans) Ram, another candidate). The candidate has declared his age as twenty -five years completed. In Electoral Rolls he has been shown as 23 years old. It has been alleged by Shri Bansi Ram that the candidate has not completed 25 years of age according to the record in the school (vide which he is reported to have been born in May 1939) and this position has been accepted by the candidate. The latter has no proof to offer tore but this assertion. Since the candidate has net completed the required age, he is not eligible to contest this Election, his nomination paper is, therefore, rejected. In the petition filed by Jit Ram questioning Bansi Rani's election the challenge to the order of the Returning Officer mentioned above is couched in the following language: The nomination papers of Shri Gajju Rom were perfectly in order. His age was at the relevant time more than 25 years. The Respondent raised objection to his nomination on the plea that he had not attained the age of 25 years. The Returning Officer, (S.D.O. Civil, Kulu). illegally and without jurisdiction rejected his nomination papers without recording any evidence or taking any proof from the Respondent, although he was above the age of 25 years. Birth entry of the said Gajju Ram shall be produced at the trial of this election petition. This illegal rejection of Gajju Ram's nomination papers has materially affected the result of election and on that ground alone the election of the Respondent is liable to be declared void. (Paragraph 2 of the election petition.) In the written statement rejection of Gajju Ram's nomination papers was admitted. It was, however, pleaded that he was not qualified to be duly nominated as a candidate as he was not 25 years of age at that time. Here, it would be more appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the plea as contained in the written statement: An objection was raised before the Returning Officer to that effect, and in reply to that objection Shri Gajju Ram admitted before the Returning Officer that his age as entered in the school at which he was educated was less than 25 years; he was given an opportunity to produce any evidence ha liked in rebuttal of his own admission and the entry in the school register,' which Shri Gajju Ram failed to produce and expressed his inability. Thus the Returning Officer was left with no option but to reject his nomination paper, and thus this rejection is proper. It appears that the election petition was then amended in certain particulars but that amendment is not relevant for our purposes.
(3.) ON these pleas issue No. 1 which concerns us on appeal was framed in the following words: Whether the nomination paper of Shri Gajju Ram was Improperly rejected, and is the election of the Respondent as such void? The learned (sic) in an exhaustive and detailed order dealt with this issue and came to the conclusion that Gajju Ram was actually above 25 years of age on the qualifying date, that, his nomination papers were Improperly rejected and that on account of the improper rejection of his nomination papers Bansi Ram's election must be held to be void.;