Judgment L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. 1. This Election Petition has been filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act (shortly R. P. Act), 1951, challenging the election of 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) Constituency and the final result of the said election declaring the respondent as an elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly which was held in the month of March, 1985. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was also a candidate for the aforesaid 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) reserved constituency by filing his nomination paper. After scrutiny several candidates remained in the field contesting the election. In Paragraph 5 of the Election Petition a list of 16 persons has been shown contested the election in the aforesaid reserved constituency. The respondent was ultimately declared elected whose election is being challenged in this election case. The petitioner was allotted bow and arrow symbol on 9th February, 1985 and thereafter, he started election campaign and canvassing on the basis of the aforesaid symbol. On 14th February, 1985 the Returning Officer issued a notice intimating his intention to change the petitioners allotted symbol which was received by great surprise by the petitioner. The petitioner, in strict obedience of the notice, appeared through his lawyer and filed objection. He contended that once the election symbol was allotted, it was final and it cannot be changed. He further contended that the allotment of symbol is not subject to any review by the Returning Officer. The Election Commissioner of India is the only competent authority to revise the allotment of symbol done by the Returning Officer and that too sparingly and also under unusual and compelling situation. Further case of the petitioner is that in spite of the protest, the Returning officer, on 15th February 1985, changed his originally allotted election symbol from bow and arrow to ladder. Bow and arrow was allotted to another candidate and ladder was allotted to the petitioner. This change in the election symbol made by the Returning Officer is claimed by the petitioner to be void and without jurisdiction as it has materially affected the election result. It is claimed that originally the election symbol ladder which was subsequently allotted to the petitioner, was allotted to another candidate. Panchanan Rajak, an independent candidate. Murari Dasi, an another independent candidate was allotted an election symbol woman carrying basket on her head. It is claimed that originally the election symbol ladder which was subsequently allotted to the petitioner, was allotted to another candidate. Panchanan Rajak, an independent candidate. Murari Dasi, an another independent candidate was allotted an election symbol woman carrying basket on her head. On 15th february, 1985, the symbol bow and arrow was again illegally allotted to murari Dasi by revising the earlier order of the Returning Officer. 3. It is further claimed that under Sec.30 of the R. P. Act, atleast 20 days time is prescribed for propagation of the symbol among the voters and the election campaign but that opportunity was not given to the petitioner as his election symbol was changed on 15th February, 1985 and the poll took place on 5th March, 1985. Therefore, the petitioner did not get clear 20 days time for campaign and propagation of his new symbol allotted to him and thus there has been violation or Sec.30 of the R. P. Act. It is further claimed that clause (d) of Paragraph 13 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and allotment) Order, 1968, the name and specimen signature of the authorised person in form (A) are to be communicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency concerned and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State/union Territory, as the case may be. Till the last date for making nomination, no name and specimen signature of the authorised persons for setting up candidates for the party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was communicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency, 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State by the Election Commission of India or by the authorised person of the party jharkhand Mukti Morcha as per clause (d) of Paragraph 13 of election Symbol (Reservation and Allotmant) Order, 1968. 4. In this circumstance, it is claimed that the petitioner who was the sitting M. L. A. in the last General Election, 1980 under his symbol, bow and arrow was a candidate of Marxist Co-ordination Committee and he had won the election by a margin of 9,611 votes. 4. In this circumstance, it is claimed that the petitioner who was the sitting M. L. A. in the last General Election, 1980 under his symbol, bow and arrow was a candidate of Marxist Co-ordination Committee and he had won the election by a margin of 9,611 votes. Therefore, it is claimed that bow and arrow symbol was commonly known as his symbol in that constituency among the voters and the change of the same subsquently has materially affected the election of the petitioner specially when he had started all campaign in all force on the basis of the symbol bow and arrow. It is said that with that symbol of bow and arrow one Mr. A. K. Roy had won Parliamentary seat and had secured the highest votes. 5. In this way the petitioner claims that he got himself identified as bow and arrow wala in his constituency since the year, 1980. The change of the symbol has greatly prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the re-allotment of the new symbol the petitioner made representation before the returning Officer and also before the Election Commissioner but he did not receive any reply and ultimately he moved Patna High Court in C. W. J. C. No.980/85 which was ultimately permitted to be withdrawn on 23rd February 1985. 6. It is the claim of the petitioner that due to change of symbol great confusion was created among the voters particularly in the mind of the rustic and illiterate Harijan and tribal voters. It is said that the aforesaid constituency is a scheduled caste, reserved constituency and, therefore, the election symbol is most important and supreme because firstly the voters see the election symbol and then put their stamp withont seeing the name of the candidate. 7. It is claimed that the election in question was conducted on 5th March, 1985 and the result was declared on 6th March, 1985. The respondent was elected from the said constituency by a margin of 430 votes more than the petitioner which is clear from the result sheet. In this circumstance, it is claimed that the election of the respondent is illegal, void and is fit to be set aside because of the sudden change of the symbol as the change made is not only void, illegal but also without jurisdiction and the same has vitiated the election of the respondent. 8. In this circumstance, it is claimed that the election of the respondent is illegal, void and is fit to be set aside because of the sudden change of the symbol as the change made is not only void, illegal but also without jurisdiction and the same has vitiated the election of the respondent. 8. It appears that in spite of service of notice the respondent did not appear who is the elected and sitting member of the Bihar Assembly. Ultimately the then Hon ble Election Judge treated the notice to have been validly served on the respondent and fixed the case for ex parte hearing by his order, dated the 20th November, 1985. Now after his retirement this case has been taken up for ex parte hearing by me after my nomination in the Election Bench. 9. Six issues have been framed in this case. Issue Nos.1 and 2 are taken up together, for the sake of convenience as they are connected to each other. In this case it is the admitted position that the election symbol bow and arrow was allotted to the petitioner on 9th February, 1985 and to that effect notice was issued by the Returning Officer. It is also the admitted position that this bow and arrow symbol was subsequently allotted to another independent candidate, Murari Dasi. It is also the admitted position that the change of symbol in spite of protest by the petitioner had taken place on 15th February, 1985 and a notice tor change of such symbol was also issued in 14th February, 1985. It is also the admitted position that poll was held on 5th March, 1985 and the result was declared on 6th March, 1985 and the respondent, Lata Devi (Mali) was declared elected. 10. In this connection documents have also been filed in support of the case of the petitioner. Ext, 1 is the list of the candidates. Ext.2 is the certified copy of the orders dated 9th February 1985, and 15th February 1985, passed by the Returning Officer showing that bow and arrow was allotted to the petitioner and ladder was allotted to Panchanan Rajak. The certified copy of the order dated 15th Febuary, 1985 (Ext.2), shows that the symbol bow and arrow was taken away from the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed ladder which was earlier allotted to Panchanan Rajak. The certified copy of the order dated 15th Febuary, 1985 (Ext.2), shows that the symbol bow and arrow was taken away from the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed ladder which was earlier allotted to Panchanan Rajak. Thus, we find that the change in the election symbol was made from what it was done on 9th february, 1985 in the manner stated above. 11. It appears that the petitioner had filed a petition, Ext.3 before the election Officer and the order passed thereon is Ext.4 which indicates that change in the symbol was made on the basis of the direction of the Chief electroal Officer who had communicated it to the Returning Officer through his letter. Ext.5 is the modified order of the election symbol as done on 15th february, 1985. Ext.6 is the certified copy of the result. In this way, issue nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 12. Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.- These issues are taken up together as they are connected with each other and can be disposed of together. It appears that according to the order of the Election Commissioner, dated 15th February, 1985 bow and arrow symbol which was allotted to the petitioner, was allotted to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha which was at that time unregistered political party. In this circumstance when that election symbol was not reserved for that party but it appears that on some petition filed by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha before the Election Commission, or the competent authority, such change was made and the Chief Electoral Office r communicated for change in the elected symbol. 13. Under Sec.30 (d) of the R. P. Act, it is claimed that 20 days clear time must be given after withdrawal of the nomination paper for the poll. So, by necessary implication it shows that a party must be given atleast 20 days time for propagation and for his campaign at the pen which becomes necessary after withdrawal of the candidate. In this case admittedly, the petitioner could not get clear 20 days time for doing the election campaign, canvassing or for making different modes in the election campaign in his favour as the election was held on 5th March, 1985 and the change in the symbol had been made on 15th February, 1985. In this case admittedly, the petitioner could not get clear 20 days time for doing the election campaign, canvassing or for making different modes in the election campaign in his favour as the election was held on 5th March, 1985 and the change in the symbol had been made on 15th February, 1985. It appears that only on 15th February, 1985 the petitioner could have started his election campaign with his new allotted election symbol ladder. The spirit of this section was, therefore, not complied with in this case, in the case of the petitioner in view of the abrupt ehange in his election symbol. 14. Rule 10 (5) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 show that allotment by the Returning Officer of any symbol to a candidate shall be final except where it is inconsistent with any direction issued by the Election Commission in this behalf in which case the Election Commission may revise the election in such menner as he thinks fit. In this case, admittedly, no instruction was issued by the Election Commission. Only a communication was received from the Chief Electoral Officer and there is nothing to show that the Election commissioner had authorised the Chief Electoral Officer to pass order on behalf of the Election Commissioner. The Chief Electoral Officer under the provisions of Sec.19-A of the R. P. Act, is required to carry on election and only day to day work. There is nothing to show that it has been done by the returning Officer at the instructure of that the Election Commission who is competent authority to make any change or revise the allotment of the symbol had issued any direction in this regard. In the absence of any specific order, of the Election Commission or the competent person, the change of the symbol of the petitioner from that of arrow and bow to ladder, in the circumstance of the case, appears to be illegal and against the aforesaid provision. 15. In this case the petitioner has examined himself and has stated that he was given bow and arrow symbol and he stated canvassing among the voters with his symbol. He has stated that, thereafter, on 15th February, 1985, the Returning Officer changed his symbol and allotted him a new symbol, ladder and bow and arrow was given to Murari Dasi, another independent candidate. He has stated that, thereafter, on 15th February, 1985, the Returning Officer changed his symbol and allotted him a new symbol, ladder and bow and arrow was given to Murari Dasi, another independent candidate. He has further said that he was the sitting M. L. A. with, that symbol in the last general election from this constituency. He has said that he lost the election this time by a margin of only 430 voters. In the year, 1980 he had won the election by a margin of 9,611 votes. He asserted that this time the main reason for his defeat in the election is the change of the election symbol and due to this change his voters were misled as they could not be appraised of this sudden change. He asserted that he could not canvass for votes with the symbol of ladder in that constituency. He has further said that he was largely and properly known in the area as the M. L. A. for the symbol of bow and arrow. He further said that he could not get 20 days time as provided in law after the change of his election symbol. He has said that altogether 16 candidates were in the field who had fought the election and out of them only four were the candidates of the party. He stated that the symbol bow and arrow which was previously allotted to him was a free symbol and the change in his symbol has materially affected the course of election if the voters were misled and they voted for Murari Dasi wrongly. P. W.7 is a formal witness who has said that the constituency in question is a reserved constituency and the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. 16. Now the question which arises for decision is as to whether the re-allotted symbol to the petitioner has materially affected the result of the election or not. In this connection it has to be kept in mind that the petitioner was a sitting M. L. A. and he had fought in 1980 election with bow and arrow symbol. In that constituency, therefore, he was popularly known with that symbol. It is also the admitted position that this symbol was again allotted to him on 9th February, 1985 in this election. In that constituency, therefore, he was popularly known with that symbol. It is also the admitted position that this symbol was again allotted to him on 9th February, 1985 in this election. It is also admitted by him that election for less than a week or nearly a week he had started his campaign with the symbol bow and arrow but the sudden change in the symbol created confusion among the voters of that constituency who wanted to vote for the petitioner. It is also the admitted position that this constituency is a reserved (S. C.)constituency in which the majority of the voters are iliterate and rustic and they can cast their votes or stamp only by identifying the candidate through the symbol on the ballot paper. Once they had understood that the petitioner was again allotted bow and arrow symbol, it was very difficult for them to clear their mind that the petitioner was not contesting the election with bow and arrow and a new symool was allotted to him. At least since five years before the petitioner was well-known in that constituency with his symbol bow and arrow which was further confirmed by allotment of the same to him on the basis of which he started his election campaign from 9th February, 1985. That is the reason that the elected candidate won the election only by a margin of 430 votes. It was rightly submitted that, in fact, the difference is of only 215 votes and 215 votes he could have polled, it could have changed the result of the election. Therefore, this small margin must be accounted for as result of the change in the election symbol. 17. In this connection it may be noted that Murari Dasi had polled who was subsequently allotted bow and arrow about 2,228 votes and Panchanan rajak had secured only 434 votes. In this circumstance it appears that there was fluctuation of votes as a result of misunderstanding and confusion created by the Returning Officer by making change of symbol without any direction or instruction to him by the Election Commissioner any officer competent in this behalf. 18. In this circumstance, it can be reasonably inferred that the change in the election symbol has materially affected the result of the election. 18. In this circumstance, it can be reasonably inferred that the change in the election symbol has materially affected the result of the election. Sec.100 (c) of the R. P. Act is applicable in this case which says that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected. The change of symbol has unndoubtedly materially affected the result of the election otherwise the petitioner had prospect and chance of success but because of sudden change, the inocent voters were not in a position to understand the confusion created by the Returning Officer as a result of which the election result has been materially affected and, as such, the election of the respondent must be held to be void and illegal P. W.1 supported it. 19. In the result, this election petition is allowed and it is hereby declared that the election of the respondent from 286-Chandan Kiyari Constituency (S. C.) (reserved constituency) is void and invalid. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Secretary, Election Commission, Government of India mew Delhi and to the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna. Election petition allowed.