JUDGMENT Sen, J. - The Petitioner Dhirendra Nath Banerji seeks to set aside the election of the Respondents Bhupendra Nath Bose and Debendra Nath Mukherji on the ground that this nomination paper was wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer acting under Rule 14 of the rules framed under sec. 30 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The facts briefly are these. The Petitioner filed three nomination papers. In two of the nomination papers he appointed himself as his election agent, and in the other he appointed one Narendra Nath Banerji as such. At the time of scrutiny the fact that he has appointed more than one election agent was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer, and he rejected all the nominations on the ground that the Petitioner had disobeyed the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act by appointing more than one election agent. 2. The Petitioner contends that this decision of the Returning Officer is wrong. I might mention here that after the date fixed for nomination the Petitioner revoked his nomination paper, wherein he had appointed Narendra Nath Banerji as election agent. Mr. Mukherji appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, states that he is not at all relying upon this revocation; so the revocation need not be considered. 3. Mr. Mukherji's argument briefly is this. He accepts the position that under the Act a candidate is entitled to appoint only one election agent and that there cannot be a plurality of election agents. He agrees that if in one of the declarations, which accompanied his nomination paper, the Petitioner had nominated two election agents such nomination paper would be rightly rejected. He says, however, that in this case each declaration contained the name of only one election agent, and therefore, taken by itself, each declaration was a good declaration; thus if each nomination paper accompanied by the declaration was dealt with separately from the others, it could not be rejected. His contention is that the proper course for the Returning Officer to follow would have been this. He should have taken up a particular nomination paper and given his decision on it. In this case if he took up any nomination paper of the Petitioner, he would have to decide that it was in order inasmuch as it was accompanied by a declaration appointing only one election agent. He should have taken up a particular nomination paper and given his decision on it. In this case if he took up any nomination paper of the Petitioner, he would have to decide that it was in order inasmuch as it was accompanied by a declaration appointing only one election agent. It was only when he took up the next nomination paper of the Petitioner that the question of an infringement of the law would arise. It could then be pointed out that one election agent had already been appointed in the declaration accompanying the previous nomination paper, that the declaration accompanying the second nomination paper by which another election agent was appointed was an illegal declaration, and that therefore that nomination paper was liable to be rejected. In this way he contends that one nomination paper of the Petitioner should have been accepted. The rejection of all the nomination papers, he says, is wrong. 4. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, that the Returning Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting all the nomination papers, and in my view this contention must be upheld. As was pointed out by Mr. N. C. Chatterji, nomination consists of three things. Firstly, there must be a proposer. Secondly, there must be a seconder, and thirdly, there must be the assent of the candidate. When these three conditions are satisfied, there is a nomination. But a person cannot be said to be duly nominated unless there is in addition to these three elements a declaration made in accordance with the provisions of sec. 27 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. This is quite clear from the section itself and from the rules made thereunder. Rule 4 says that a nomination shall be made by means of a nomination paper in the form annexed to the Rules, and the form provides for a proposer and a seconder and also for the assent of the candidate. Sec. 27 (2) is in the following terms: On or before the date on which a candidate is nominated, the candidate shall make in writing and sign a declaration appointing either himself or some other person who is not disqualified under sec. 32 for the appointment to be his election agent and no candidate shall be deemed to be duly nominated unless such declaration has been made. 5. 32 for the appointment to be his election agent and no candidate shall be deemed to be duly nominated unless such declaration has been made. 5. This makes it clear that unless there Is a declaration made in accordance with the provisions of sec. 27, sub-sec. (2), there has been no due nomination. 6. Now, it is only after there has been a nomination that there can be a scrutiny of the nomination papers. This is clear from the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 5. Under these Rules the Provincial Government shall appoint a date by which the nominations of the candidates shall be made and a further date for the scrutiny of the nominations. On or before the date fixed for the making of the nominations, the candidates shall file the nomination papers, together with certain declarations, one declaration being the declaration made in accordance with the provisions of sec. 27 (2) of the Callcutta Municipal Act. After this is done, the scrutiny takes place by the Returning Officer. At the time of scrutiny it is open to any of the opposing candidates to urge before the Returning Officer that there has not been a due nomination, because the provisions of sec. 27 (2) have not been followed in making the declaration required by the section. If any of the candidates satisfies the Returning Officer that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to nomination of the candidates or any failure to comply with the provisions of the Act relating to the deposits to be made by candidates under sec. 27 (3) of the Act, then the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination paper. [See Rule 14 (1) (iii)]. 7. This takes us to the question whether there has been any failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 27 (2) provides clearly that on or before the date of the nomination the candidate shall make a declaration appointing either himself or some other person who is not disqualified under sec. 32 as his election agent. It is to be remembered that this declaration is to be made before the scrutiny. Now there is no room for the candidate appointing more than one person as election agent. He may appoint either himself or some other person. 32 as his election agent. It is to be remembered that this declaration is to be made before the scrutiny. Now there is no room for the candidate appointing more than one person as election agent. He may appoint either himself or some other person. This was held in the case of Mahamed Hossain v. Mahamed Rafique I.L.R [1942] Cal 230 and I respectfully accept this view as being correct. It is also clear from the words of the sub-section that it contemplates only one declaration. If one person only can be appointed an election agent, there can be no room for two declarations. The section also speaks of a declaration. Now, what has the Petitioner done in this case? He has not made one declaration on or before the date of the nomination, but he made two different declarations, one appointing himself and the other appointing Narendra Nath Banerji as election agents. He therefore committed a breach of the Act at the time he filed his nomination paper. As I have stated before, Mr. Mukherji does not rely on the revocation. The effect of that breach of the Act, therefore, continued and was present at the time of the scrutiny. The Opposite Parties were, therefore, entitled at the time of the scrutiny to rely on this breach for the purpose of having each and every nomination paper of the Petitioner rejected. As each nomination paper of the candidate was taken up for scrutiny they could say to the Returning Officer, "Here is a candidate who has made two different declarations appointing two different election agents at the time of the nomination and the law directs him to make only one declaration. You must, therefore, reject his nomination paper by reason of the provisions of Rule 14." In my opinion it would be no answer to say that the first nomination paper was good, because to it was attached a declaration regarding the appointment of one person only as election agent. The breach of the law had already been committed at the time that the several nomination papers were filed with separate declarations appointing two election agents and that breach was still in existence at the time of scrutiny. Each nomination was not a due nomination on the date on which the nomination paper was filed and was therefore liable to be rejected on scrutiny. Each nomination was not a due nomination on the date on which the nomination paper was filed and was therefore liable to be rejected on scrutiny. In this view, I am of opinion that the nomination papers of the Petitioner have been rightly rejected and this application is, therefore, dismissed with costs.