- (1.) THE only ground, on which the election of the returned candidate is sought to be declared void, is - that the petitioner's nomination paper was improperly rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner is an Advocate. The State of Punjab was under the President's rule when a Mid-Term Poll was ordered. In this petition, the dispute relates to Lehrgaga Constituency. This Constituency was called to elect its representative to the Vidhan Sabha on the 1st of January, 1969. The nomination papers were to be filed with effect from the 4h of January, 1969, to the 8th of January, 1969. On the 7th of January, 1969, the petitioner personally filed him nomination papers would be scrutinised on the 9th of January, 1969, the date fixed for that purpose. At the time, when the nomination papers were scrutinised, the petitioner did not appear. No objection was taken to his nomination paper by any other candidate. The Returning Officer, suo motu, rejected his nomination paper and recorded his decision thus : " present :- None. Rejected, as the age qualification is not clearly fulfilled. Sd:-Returning Officer. " 9. 1. 1969. 11-30 A. M. Thereafter, the polling took place on the 9th of February, 1969. The ballots were counted on the 11th of February, 1969; and on that date, the result was declared Shri Harchand Singh, respondent, was declared as a returned candidate, his nearest rival being Shri Brish Bhan. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Ss. 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act ). The only ground, on which the election of the returned candidate is sought to be declared void, is one under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act, namely, that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected.
(3.) THE respondent, Shri Harchand Singh, filed his written statement on the 23rd of April, 1969. He raised a number of pleas; but the only plea, that was put in issue and on which the trial proceeded, relates to the improper rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner. The only disputed question is, whether the petitioner was below the age of 25 years on the date when he filed his nomination paper?;