Short Note : 1. The election of the respondent no.1 was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that he had not made and subscribed the prescribed oath or affirmation required under Article 84 (a) of the Constitution of India, and was therefore, disqualified to contest the elections. It was averred that the prescribed oath or affirmation was subscribed at 1-00 pm. on February 17, 1977, when the respondent No.1 could not be said to have been nominated to fill the Chhindwara seat in the House of People. The respondent No.1, it was alleged, filed his nomination paper at 1:15 p.m. and till the time he had filed his nomination papers, he could not be said to have been nominated and therefore, the occasion for taking the 'prescribed oath or affirmation did not arise. 2. The reply of the respondent No.1 in this behalf was that he had presented the nomination papers which were duly proposed and accepted by him along with the necessary receipt of the security deposit and one oath form sometime before 1:00 p.m. on February 17, 1977. He contended that he handed over the papers to the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer pointed out that the oath subscribed by him was on an obsolete form. He took the form of oath given to him and went to the adjoining room where he subscribed the necessary oath and brought the form and presented it again to the Returning Officer along with the same nomination papers. 3. The Court framed issue No.1, in this respect, and after discussing the evidence the Court arrived at the following findings of facts. 4. From the evidence it is quite clear that respondent No.1 had presented the nomination papers sometime before 1:00 pm. This is also the evidence of respondent No.1, that he had submitted the nomination papers along with the oath form before the Returning Officer. It is further clear from the above evidence that the Returning Officer returned the invalid old form to the respondent No.1 and asked him to take the oath in an adjoining room in proper form. The respondent No.1 had taken the form. According to the Returning Officer, the respondent No.1 had taken the nomination papers back and re-submitted them along with the oath form. The respondent No.1 had taken the form. According to the Returning Officer, the respondent No.1 had taken the nomination papers back and re-submitted them along with the oath form. However, according to respondent No.1, he left the nomination papers on the table but only took the oath form and after subscribing the oath, submitted them before the Returning Officer. 5. In the instant case, the oath had been taken after the proposal had been made and accepted by the candidate. There were four such proposal forms and there were four such acceptances by the candidate. The candidate had also deposited the security amount of Rs.500 as required under section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent No.1 who had come prepared to file the nomination had actually produced the nomination papers along with other documents and delivered them to the Returning Officer at a little earlier than 1:00 pm. The Returning Officer undoubtedly pointed out the mistake in the oath form and asked the respondent No.1 to subscribe the oath in the correct form which he made over to him. However, the Returning Officer also returned the nomination forms. The respondent No.1 took the oath form as also the nomination forms. The nomination forms were left on the table before the Returning Officer. He went to the next room, made and subscribed the necessary oath and then came and filed the oath form as well as the nomination papers. On the presentation of the nomination papers in the first instance the respondent No.1 would be considered to be nominated. Held: On the basis of these facts it appears true that Shri Gargishankar Mishra respondent No.1 was in doubt as to the true legal position as to when the oath had to be subscribed. This is clear because he had already brought the oath form sworn at Seoni. All the same, it is also clear that he had come wholly prepared to file the nomination forms and not merely to take advice of the Returning Officer. When he presented the nomination forms it was with the intention of filing them and not with the purpose of merely showing them to the Returning Officer. Now, once the nomination forms have been delivered to the Returning Officer, it would not be permissible to take them back. When he presented the nomination forms it was with the intention of filing them and not with the purpose of merely showing them to the Returning Officer. Now, once the nomination forms have been delivered to the Returning Officer, it would not be permissible to take them back. The presentation of nomination contemplated under section 33 of the Act is by delivery to the Returning Officer of the nomination paper. The respondent No.1 having handed over the nomination papers to the Returning Officer had, in fact complied with the requirements of section 33 and it was not open to the Returning Officer to return back the forms to the respondent No.1. There is no provision for returning the nomination paper once it has been delivered If the candidate wanted to withdraw, he could do so by making an application under section 37 of the Act. However, as to what had actually transpired, I have to rely on the Returning Officer, As to what would constitute delivery of document would be a question of fact and the test would be whether the respondent No.1 had lost domain over the papers when he had handed over them to the Returning Officer As already pointed out, there is nothing in the evidence of respondent No.1 to suggest that he wanted the papers back but it was the Returning Officer who had returned them. If they were really returned, the respondent No.1's position would not materially improve by leaving the documents at the table. I am, however, of the view that the Returning Officer as also the respondent No.1 had not appreciated the true legal position and there is no escape from the conclusion that the nomination papers had, in fact, been delivered to the Returning Officer. This had taken place a little before 1-00 p.m. 6. It cannot be said that the nomination ensuring to the respondent No.1 on the delivery of the nomination papers in the first instance was obliterated the moment the nomination papers were returned to him. The nomination process which began by handing over the nomination papers to the Returning Officer subsisted and while taking the oath he could declare himself to be a person who was nominated to fill the seat of Chhindwara constituency for the House of People. The nomination process which began by handing over the nomination papers to the Returning Officer subsisted and while taking the oath he could declare himself to be a person who was nominated to fill the seat of Chhindwara constituency for the House of People. The Returning Officer's putting the time of presentation of the nomination papers as having been done at 1:15 p.m. would not alter the position to the detriment of the respondent No.1. There has been a substantial compliance of Article 84 (a) of the Constitution. The respondent No.1 had taken the necessary oath to acquire the qualification under the said Article. The respondent No.1, in my opinion, had acquired the desired qualification. I, therefore, hold the issue No.1 (a) in the affirmative. The nomination of respondent No.1 was not wrongly accepted. As regards issue No.1 (b), I hold that the respondent No.1 had made and subscribed the oath as prescribed by Article 84 (a) of the Constitution. The question of the election being materially affected because of the acceptance of the nomination papers does not arise as I have already held that the nomination was properly accepted. Pashupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1064 , Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji, AIR 1970 SC 765 , Khaje Khanawar Kadarkhan v. Siddavanaballi, AIR 1969 SC 1034 , relied on.