JUDGMENT : P.B. Gajendragadar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises from an election petition filed by Mr Bindu (hereinafter called "the appellant") challenging the validity of the election of Mr Sonule (hereinafter called "Respondent 2 ") to the House of the People from the Parliamentary constituency of Nanded in the State of Bombay. This constituency is a two- member constituency, one seat being reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the other being general. In the last general election held in 1957 the appellant, Mr Kabra (hereinafter called "Respondent 3"), Mr Kamble (hereinafter called "Respondent 1") and Respondent 2 had offered themselves as candidates from the said constituency. The voting at this constituency took place between March 2, 1957 and March 11, 1957. The counting of votes showed that the appellant and Respondents 1 to 3 had polled 1,46,686, 1,77,263, 1,49,663 and 1,32,075 votes respectively. On March 23, 1957, the Returning Officer declared that Respondent 1 had been elected to the reserved seat and Respondent 2 to the general seat. It is this declaration of the election of Respondent 2 to the general seat that was challenged by the appellant in his election petition. 2. The Election Tribunal at Nagpur which tried this petition rejected the appellant's contention that since Respondent 2 had offered himself as a candidate for the reserved seat he could not claim to be elected to the general seat. In the result the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Bombay and raised the same contention before it. The High Court agreed with the conclusion of the Election Tribunal and so dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. It is against this decision that the present appeal by special leave has been preferred. 3. The point which the appellant seeks to raise in this appeal is covered by our decision in the case of V. V. Giri v. Dippala Suri Dora, Ante p. 188. Indeed this appeal and the appeal preferred by Shri Giri were heard together and it was conceded by the appellant in the present appeal that the decision of this appeal would be governed by our decision in the said appeal. Indeed this appeal and the appeal preferred by Shri Giri were heard together and it was conceded by the appellant in the present appeal that the decision of this appeal would be governed by our decision in the said appeal. Since we have held in the said appeal that a member of the Scheduled Tribes or Castes does not become ineligible to contest election to the general seat merely because he makes the prescribed declaration under section 33(2), it follows that the present appeal cannot succeed. 4. In the result the order passed by the High Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs in favour of Respondent 2. KAPUR, J.- The question to be decided in this appeal is the same as in Civil Appeal No. 539 of 19581 and there I have given the opinion that election is to fill a seat and consequently, this appeal is allowed with costs.