Judgment L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. 1. These two election petitions i. e. , election petitions 7 and 8 of 1985 (R) have been tried analogously as both of them arise out of the same assembly constituency i. e.295-Chaibasa Reserved Assembly Constituency for the Scheduled Tribes in the district of Singhbhum. In election petition no.7/8 : (R) Mrs. Muktidani Sumbrui who as a candidate of that constituency nominated by Indian an National Congress, is The petitioner. In election petition no.8/85 (R) Gomeya Purty is the petitioner who has filed his election petition on the ground that his nomination paper was wrongly rejected by the Returning officer. The case of both the election petitioners substantially are the same and it is convenient to state them together, 2. Respondent No.1, Shri Radhe Munda who was a candidate of Bhartiya janta Party, was declared elected from 295-Chaibasa Assembly Constituency and it is his election which is being challenged in these two election petitions with a view that the same should be set aside. 3. The case of the petitioners in both the election petitions is that the last assembly Election, the process of which started in January, 1985, ultimately concluded on 6th of March, 1985 and the Returning Officer had declared respondent No.1, Radhe Munda (B. J. P.) as elected from the aforesaid constit-uency. It is claimed by both the petitioners that respondents 1 to 12 were the other candidates who had filed their nomination papers and the last date fixed for scrutiny was 7th February, 1985. Out of them the namination paper of gomeya Purty, the petitioners of Election Petition No.8/85 (R), was rejected on scrutiny on the ground that he was not a member of Scheduled Tribe. His another nomination paper which was proposed by one Lanka Bari, was also rejected on the ground that proposers name was not found in the electoral roll. It was claimed that the nomination paper of the Sonaram Nag who was not a member of Scheduled Tribe, was wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer. It is claimed that Sonaram Nag was disqualified to contest the election from that assembly Constituency under law because he belongs to Tamariya caste which is listed as backward caste and not Scheduled Tribe under the constitution. 4. It is claimed that Sonaram Nag was disqualified to contest the election from that assembly Constituency under law because he belongs to Tamariya caste which is listed as backward caste and not Scheduled Tribe under the constitution. 4. The further claim of Gomeya Purty petitioner of election petition no.8/85 (R) is that his nomination paper was wrongly rejected on the sole ground that he had not attached caste certificate of the competent authority although he had attached a caste certificate granted by Ilaka Manki. It was claimed that there is no law that a caste certificate should be attached with the nomination paper. In the prescribed form of nomination only a declaration is to be made that the candidate belongs to scheduled caste. It is alleged that without any objection being raised from any quarter cr from any candidate the rejection of his nomination paper suo moto by the Returning Officer was illegal and the returning Officer should have given him opportunity to produce caste certificate of any competent authority and he having not done so, the rejection of his nomination paper is totally illegal and contrary to law. 5. The other ground on which the election of the returned candidate, respondent No.1, Radhe Munda is challenged to be set aside is that the elected candidate was not a Munda by caste and he was ho. by caste which is clear from his school certificate. It is alleged that the voters were misled by him as he posed himself to be Munda and this fraudulent conduct of respondent No. i materially affected the result of the election by his calculated and deliberate deception on the voters. 6. There are series of corrupt practices alleged against the elected candidate Radhe Munda which are alleged to have been practised by him. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 and offered gifts, in cash and kind of free food and drinks to the voters and thereby induced them to vote for him. It is also alleged that he was externed under the Crime Control Order by the Deputy commisioner and he was not allowed to visit Chaibasa, Chakradharpur and seraikella. It is further asid that Radhe Munda was habitual criminal and notorious offender and he commands a gang of anti-social elements including janardan Yadav who helped him in the election by creating reign of terror in that area. It is further asid that Radhe Munda was habitual criminal and notorious offender and he commands a gang of anti-social elements including janardan Yadav who helped him in the election by creating reign of terror in that area. It is claimed that respondent No.1 had procured a large number of motors, cars and jeeps and had incurred expenses beyond prescribed limits. It is also claimed that the Government Officials were also helpful to him. He got a false news published in the ranchi Express that the petitioner was arrested which affected the prospect of his election, ft is also claimed that rigging was done in a large scale as a result of which re-polling was ordered but that was not done in accordance with law. 7. It is further claimed that G. S. Kang, Deputy Commissioner of Singh-bhum and the Returning Officer, Surya Bhushan Sahay who was Sub-divisional officer, Sadar, Chaibasa had extended help to the elected candidate as the petitioner had made a complaint against the officials specially the Deputy commissioner who had delivered prerogative speech inciting the Adivasis to take the law in their own hands in the same manner as the Sikhs are doing in Punjab. The Deputy Commissioner himself was a Sikh. The petitioner, Mukiidani sumbrui who was also a State Minister, had reported all these matters to the Chief minister and recommended for taking action against him. It was also asserted that the Deputy Commissioner was hostle against the petitioner as this petitioner had played a prominent roll in resistence movement of the Adivasis who were opposing the camtruction of a T. V. station on Class 1 land at Dindal, Jainshed-pui which was impalatable to the officials. In these circumstances, materially stated above, it was claimed that the election of respondent No.1 is void. 8. Written statements in both the election petitions have beed filed by respondent No.1, Radhe Munda, substantially, making the same allegations. It is claimed that the election petition filed by Muktidani Sumbrui and Gomeya purty is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. The allegations made in the uo election petitions do not disclose valid cause of action. It is claimed that the nomination paper filed by Gomeya Purty whose name was proposed by lanke Bari, was not accompanied by any caste certificate granted by any competent authority and hence both the nomination papers were rightly rejected. The allegations made in the uo election petitions do not disclose valid cause of action. It is claimed that the nomination paper filed by Gomeya Purty whose name was proposed by lanke Bari, was not accompanied by any caste certificate granted by any competent authority and hence both the nomination papers were rightly rejected. It is claimed that Ilaka Manki, is not duly authorised by the Government of Bihar to issue caste certificate. Even the caste certificate granted by Manki did not relate to the petitioner, Gomeya Purty. It is claimed that the serial number of the proposer did not tally with the; voter list. In this circumstances during scrutiny these defects were detected on February 7th, 1985 and ; as such, his nomination paper was rejected and the remaining 12 candiates whose nomination papers were found valid, were accepted and they were allowed to contest the election. 9. It is claimed that Sonaram Nag who was an independent candidate, is munda by caste and Mundas are scheduled tribes in the State of Bihar. It is also alleged that it is false and mischievous to say that Sonaram Nag is not munda by caste. The Block Development Officer, Sadar Chaibasa, District welfare Officer and the Deputy Commissioner hal granted certificates that sonaram Nag is Munda by caste. In these circumstances his nomination paper was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer. It is incorrect to say that he is a member of backward class as alleged by the petitioner. 10. It is further claimed that Radhe Munda is not Munda by caste. His father and grandfather all were known as Munda and therefore, his surname is munda Respondent No.1 belongs to ho caste which is recognised as scheduled tribe in the State of Bihar. It is claimed that the surname of the father of respondent No.1 has been described by the petitioner himself as Sinu Munda. It is, therefore, claimed that the ancestors of respondent No.1, bore surname of munda although they were ho by caste. In this circumstance, it is claimed that respondent No.1 did not commit any mistake or illegality in adopting the surname of his father, grandfather and great grandfather. It is also claimed that it is incorrect to say that a person can be Munda either by birth or by appoint-ment by Kolhan Superintendent or the Deputy Commissioner. In this circumstance, it is claimed that respondent No.1 did not commit any mistake or illegality in adopting the surname of his father, grandfather and great grandfather. It is also claimed that it is incorrect to say that a person can be Munda either by birth or by appoint-ment by Kolhan Superintendent or the Deputy Commissioner. In these circumstances respondent No. I did not mislead the votes by posing himself as munda. The voters knew that respondent No.1 belonged to a well known family whose father and grandfather bore the surname of Munda and, therefore, there was no question of any misleading the voter and the voters were not at all misled as alleged in the election petition. Therefore, it is claimed that the returning Officer has rightly accepted the nomination paper of respondent No.1, as Radhe Munda and there was no question of deception or fraudule it conduct on the part of respondent No.1, nor there was any misleading of the voters. 11. The respondents have denied all the allegations of corrupt practices levelled against them and as a counter they have challenged that the petitioner had included in giving bribe, food and drinks to the voters ;and they had also appointed anti-social elements for directly or indirectly interfering with the free exercise of the electoral rights of the voters. It is admitted that Radhe Munda was externed under Crime Control Order but, illegally and he had preferred appeal before the Commissioner which was still pending then. It is claimed that the petitioner Muktidani Sumbrui whose husband was Bagun Sumbrui, M. P. were apprehensive that if respondent No.1 would visit Chaibasa, Chakradharpur and Seraikella, he will defeat the petitioner and in these circumstances, as a political rivalries, those cases were instituted. 12. It is further claimed that Janardan Yadav is not associated with respondent No.1, nor respondent No.1 had anything to do with him and all the allegations are false and mischievous. It is further denied that Radhe Munda had never incurred un-authorised expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. It is claimed that bomb-explosion was caused at the hands, of Bishwanath Sumbrui, the son of the petitioner, Muktidani Sumbrui as a result of which Bishwanath sumbrui was arrested along with his associates and chargesheeted under the sections of the Indian Penal Code and later on he was released on bail. 13. It is claimed that bomb-explosion was caused at the hands, of Bishwanath Sumbrui, the son of the petitioner, Muktidani Sumbrui as a result of which Bishwanath sumbrui was arrested along with his associates and chargesheeted under the sections of the Indian Penal Code and later on he was released on bail. 13. It is said that re-polling was held in two polling stations, namely, polling station Nos.102 and 105 as a result of the order of the Election commission and it is alleged that election was disturbed in those booths by anti-social elements led by Bishwanath Sumbrui. The allegation of hostile disposition of the officials against the petitioner was absolutely false and the petitioner was never a leader of the resistence movement of the Adivasis nor there was any objection to the construction of the T. V. station at Adityapur jamshedpur. It is also claimed that the Deputy Commissioner and the Returning officer conducted the election in a fair and impartial manner and Mrs Muktidam sumbrui who wanted to misuse the Government Officials on the strength of her being Minister of State had created troubles but was unsuccessful in her design and she was defeated at the election. It is said that no candidate except Gomeya purty the petitioner of Election Petition No.8/85 (R), was disqualified in the ssruting. All the other allegations made in the two election petitions have been denied and claimed to be false. 14. It is said that no candidate except Gomeya purty the petitioner of Election Petition No.8/85 (R), was disqualified in the ssruting. All the other allegations made in the two election petitions have been denied and claimed to be false. 14. On the pleadings of the parties and the allegations and counter allegations the following issues were framed by the then Election Judge for determination and decision in this case :- (1) Is the election petition maintainable ; (2) Was the nomination paper of respondent No.12, Shri Gomeya Purty, improperly rejected (3) Was the nomination paper of respondent No.1, Shri Radhe Munda improperly accepted (4) Were the nomination papers of respondent -No 4, Sbri Sonaram Nag improperly accepted, if so, was the result of election materially affected (:) Did the respondent No.1, Shri Radhe Munda and his agent with his consent commit corrupt practices under the provisions of Sec.123 of the R. P. Act, 1951 (f) Was the result of election materially affected by improper acception of void votes in favour of respondent No.1, Radhe Munda and improperly refusal and rejection of valid votes of the petitioner (7) Was the result of election materially affected by non-compliance of the provision of Constitution of India, R. F. Act, 1951 and Rules and Orders made thereunder (8) Is the election of respondent No.1, void and fit to be set aside and is the petitioner entitled to be declared elected duly (9) Is the petitioner entitled for any other relief ? 15. Issue No.1.-This issue was not pressed on the ground of non-compliance of material facts as required under Sec.83 of the R. P. Act but the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case the petitioners have claimed tbat the election of respondent No.1 be set aside and in these circumstances only the returned candidate is required to be made a party under Sec.86 (2) of the R. P. Act. It was therefore, on behalf of the respondent that the other respondents except the elected candidate, respondent no.1, were pot necessary parties under Sec.82 of the R. P. Act, as such, this election petition should be dismissed. 16. It was therefore, on behalf of the respondent that the other respondents except the elected candidate, respondent no.1, were pot necessary parties under Sec.82 of the R. P. Act, as such, this election petition should be dismissed. 16. So far material facts are concerned, which has not been pressed and no evidence has been adduced to show that the election petitions were not attested or not signed according to the requirements of the law, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the point of attestation of the documents of the election petition. Respondent No.1, has not been examined. This point has also not been taken in the written statement as there was no any such defect. The copies of the returned election petition has been also kept on record to show that they were properly attested. Therefore, there does not appear to be any defect so far Sec.81 (6) of the R. P. Act is concerned and rightly this point was not pressed. 17. In Election Petition No.8/85 (R), Gomeya Purty who is the petitioner, has claimed that the election of respondent No.1, Radhe Munda, from 295-Chaibasa Reserved S. T. seat be declared void and the same be set aside. But he has made all the 12 candidates who contested the elections as respondents in the election petition. According to Sec.82 of the R. P. Act if such prayer is made, it was submitted, that only the elected candidate was the necessary party and inclusion of the names of the other respondents was not necessary and it is not in accordance with the Act. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a ruling reported in (Jyati Basu and others V/s. Debu gosal and others), AIR 1982 Supreme Court, 983, in which it was held that one may be joined as a party to a election petition otherwise than as provided by sections 82 and 86 (4) of the R. P. Act. It follows that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as respondent to the election petition. In this ruling it has not been considered as to the effect of such addition of the parties who were not required to be added as party under Sec.82 of the R. P. Act, if a simplicitor declaration is sought that the election of the elected candidate be declared void. 18. In this ruling it has not been considered as to the effect of such addition of the parties who were not required to be added as party under Sec.82 of the R. P. Act, if a simplicitor declaration is sought that the election of the elected candidate be declared void. 18. In may view if other candidates who contested the election are added as party that itself, will not incur dismissal of the election petition. This view is supported by a ruling reported in AIR (Sic); Madhya Pradesh, (Sic) in which it was held that if in the election petition other contesting candidates whom it is not necessary to add, have been added as parties, is itself not sufficient and does not incur dismissal of the election petition merely on the ground that the election peti toner should have joined only the returned candidate. This view is further supported by another ruling reported in AIR 1964 Bombay 136. Therefore, simply addition of others in party to election petition No.8/85 (R) and the returned candidate who contested the eclection, is not sufficient for dismissal of the election petition is itself and the argument advanced on this point is wholly untenable. 19. Apart from the aforesaid conclusion arrived at in this case election petitions No.7/85 (R) and 8/85 (R) have been taken up together and have been tried together. In both the election petitions the allegations "are substantially the same sort of written siatements. In election petition No.7/85 (R) the election petitioner has not only claimed that the election of the elected candidate Radhe munda be declared viod but also has claimed in addition to that, that the petitioner be declared herself elected. Under such circumstances, according to the requirements of the law under Sections 82 and 86 of the R. P. Act all the candidates who contested the election are necessary parties. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent on this issue appears to be wholly of academic nature and has no value. Even if one election petition goes and the other cannot stand. As both the election petitions have been tried together, no election petition can be summarily dismissed on this score only. Therefore, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded undisputed by either parties that both the election petitions, in the circumstances, are maintainable. This issue is accordingly answered. 20. As both the election petitions have been tried together, no election petition can be summarily dismissed on this score only. Therefore, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it has to be concluded undisputed by either parties that both the election petitions, in the circumstances, are maintainable. This issue is accordingly answered. 20. Issue No.2.-This issue is only related with Shri Gomeya Party who is the petitioner in election petition No, 8/85 (R) and is respondent No.12 in election petition No.7/85 (R ). In this case these are the admitted facts ; shri Gomeya Purty was one of the candidates who had filed nomination paper for contesting the election in question which was a reserved seat for the shceduled tribes. It is the admitted fact that the last date for filing the nomindtion paper was 6th February, 1985. The date of scrutiny was 7th February, 1985 and the date of withdrawal was 9th February, 1985 and the date of result was 6th March, 1985. It is also the admitted position tbat out of the 12 candidates who contested the election and who have been made parties in both the election petitions, respondent No.1 was ultimately declared elected on 6th March, 1985. It is also the admitted position that the nomination paper of the aforesaid 12 candidates whose names are mentioned in both tha election pstitions and annexures have been attached to show that they had polled votes, were accepted by the Returning Officer on 7th February 1985. It is also ths admitted position that the election petitioner of election petition No 8/851 (R), Gomaya Purty had filed two nomination papers on 6th February, 1985 and his one nomination paper was rejected on 7th February, 1985 by the Returning Officer on the only ground that the caste certificate submitted by him was not granted by a competent autiiority. The other nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty proposed by Shri lanka Ban was rejected on the ground that in part 133 serial No.185 of the electoral roll, the name of Shanti Bhushan was mentioned and not the name o; lanka Pan. The other nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty proposed by Shri lanka Ban was rejected on the ground that in part 133 serial No.185 of the electoral roll, the name of Shanti Bhushan was mentioned and not the name o; lanka Pan. In both the election petitions points have been raised that with the nomination papers of Gomeya Purty were illegaly and improperly rejected b; the Returning Officer contrary to the provisions of law as contained in Sections 32 and 36 of the R. P. Act the consequence of which will directly fall under section 10 (c) of the R. P, Act, 1951. 21. Apart from the admitted facts the parties have also adduced oral and documentary evidence on this point. Sec.33 of the R. P. Act provide for presentation of the nomination papers and requirements for valid nomination. Sec.33 (2) of the Act says that in a constituency where any seat is reserved the condidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless the nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying his particular caste or tribe of which he is a member in that area in relation to which that caste or tribe is scheduled caste or, as the case may be, scheduled tribe of the State. The emphasis is that in a reserved constituency, like the present one, in any nomination paper a candidate is required to make a declaration in the prescribed from and nothing else with regard to the caste to which he belongs whether he is a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of that area. This section nowhere provide that a candidate must file a certificate showing his caste from any competent authority. The Act does not make out any provision as to who shall be the competent authority for granting a caste certificate. 22. Section 36 of the R P. Act provides for scrutiny of the nomination papers on the date fixed. Sec.36 (2) of the R. P. Act provides that under what circumstances the nomination paper can be rejected and Sec.36 (2) (b)of the Act provides that there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of Sec.33 or 34 of the R. P. Act. We have to keep all the provisions in mind and to determine the issues in question. We have to keep all the provisions in mind and to determine the issues in question. The petitioner, gomeya Purty belongs to scheduled tribe of ho community, was never disputed at any time. It is the admitted position that no candidate who had filed nomination papers including the elected candidate had filed any objection with regard to the caste of the election petitioner, Gomeya Purty. It was the admitted case that he belongs to ho caste which, admittedly, is scheduld tribe according to the notification for which Ext.8, list of scheduled tribe has been proved. 23. It is also the admitted position that the first nomination paper of gomeya Purty has been rejected by the Returning Officer only because it did not contain caste certificate of a competent authority. That was not required by law and admittedly, he had filled in the declaration form claiming himself to be the scheduled tribe of that area showing his caste Apart from that he had also hied a caste certificate granted by the Ilaka Manki. That was not accepted by the Returning Officer and he, who is R. W. C:,. has admitted that the nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty was rejected only because caste certificate was not attached with the nomination paper. The Returning Officer, R. W.5, has himself admitted in his evidence that it was not required under law. The two nomination papers filed by Shri Gomeya Purty are Exts 1 and I/a. 24. According to Sec.33 of the R. P Act the nomination paper is to be 61ed in a prescribed form for which the form prescribed is 2-B as per Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and there is no other provision staying anything more or requiring any more document to be filed by the condidate than a declaration. Admittedly Shri Gomeya purty Had made such a declaration in his nomination paper as required in Sec.33 (2) of the R. P. Act. There is no dispute about that. Therefore, he was qualified to contest the election in question. In such circumstances there was no scope for rejection of the nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty. Admittedly Shri Gomeya purty Had made such a declaration in his nomination paper as required in Sec.33 (2) of the R. P. Act. There is no dispute about that. Therefore, he was qualified to contest the election in question. In such circumstances there was no scope for rejection of the nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty. If the Retu/ning Officer bad any doubt about bis caste or he requited certificate by any competent authority he should have given him time to clarify the doubt created by the Returning Officer and the returning Officer should have also, named the competent authority but he rejected the nomination paper of Shri Gomeya Purty arbitarily and suo motu without any objection from any candidate. 25. Therefore, the circumstances show that Shri Gomeya Purty being a member of scheduled tribe and innocent man, in order to fortify his claim had filed caste certificate granted by the Ilaka Manki of the village and that caste certificate is Ext.2 and Ext.6. Shri S. B. Sahay, the Returning Officer, in his evidence as R. W.5, has very frankly admitted that there is no provision in the r. P. Act for filing caste certificate. He further added that there is no provision under the R. P. Act for filing certificate by the scheduled tribe candidate granted by a particular authority. Therefore, rejection of the nomination paper of Shri gomeya Purty on the ground of want of caste certificates absolutely improper and illegal In the circumstances, admittedly his nomination paper was improperly rejected. 26. The petitioner has also examined three witnesses. Among them p. W.1 is the petitioner himself. He has supported his case and has claimed that he belongs to ho community which is also admitted by all the R. W. He has further said that S. D O.-cum-Returning Officer, Chaibasa had subsequently granted certificate to this petitioner that he was ho by caste and that certificate is Exts.5 and 5/a. R W.5, the S. D. O.-cum-Returning Officer, has admitted that he had granted those certificates and that be belongs to the ho community of scheduled tribe of that area. This has been proved in court to satisfy the court that the petitioner, Shri Gomeya Purty was a member of the scheduled tribe and he had fundamental right to contest the election. This has been proved in court to satisfy the court that the petitioner, Shri Gomeya Purty was a member of the scheduled tribe and he had fundamental right to contest the election. No doubt, this caste certificate was granted subsequent to the filing of the nomination paper and after election of that constituency but they have been proved to show that no fraud was committed at any stage by the petitioner and, intact, the petitioner belonged to the scheduled tribe which was never in dispute at any time and, therefore, rejection of his nomination paper on that account was absolutely improper. 27. P. W.2, Soren Purty is the son of the petitioner who has stated that he had contested the election previously and was declared successfuly from the scheduled tribe constituency, P. W.3 is the Mani who has granted caste certificate which was not accepted by the Returning Officer who himself "stated that Gomeya purty belongs to "ho" community of scheduled tribe which was never challenged P. W.3 also said that none of the candidates or anybody had objected in the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by Shri Gomeya Purty. He further stated that the Returning Officer (S D. O.) told that Shri Gomeya Purty had not brought caste certificate of the competent authority and, as such, he rejected his nomination paper. 28. R. W.1, stated in his cross-examination that he was the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat. He stated that in the records-of-rights caste is also mentioned the person in whose name the lands are recorded. He stated that purty is title and of people of ho community also use it which supports the case of the petitioner. R. W.2 admitted that the nomination paper of Gomeya purty was rejected mainly because Manki had issued the caste certificate in the name of Gomeya HO with different parentage. He admitted in his cross-examination persons of HO community use different title and surnames like purty and HO. R. Ws.3 and 4 are not this point. 29. Thus according to the oral evidence also it is elear that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner, Gomeya Purty belongs to scheduled tribe of HO community and he made such a declaration in his nomination paper but arbitrarily his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. R. Ws.3 and 4 are not this point. 29. Thus according to the oral evidence also it is elear that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner, Gomeya Purty belongs to scheduled tribe of HO community and he made such a declaration in his nomination paper but arbitrarily his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. The second nomination paper was rejected because it was proposed by Lanka bari and the name of this proposer, Lanka Bari as shown in the nomination paper in part No.133 serial No. l85 of the electoral roll, did not appear but the one Shanti Bhai had appeared. Without discussing on this point, I think, it will be relevant only to refer to the evidence of the Returning Officer, R. W.5, who has stated that he had committed an error in ascertaining the name of the proposer and when the electoral roll was handed over to him, he admitted that it was an error and mistake he had committed, as the name of the proposer, lanka Bari did appear in part No.13-, serial No.185 of the electoral roll or the voter list which is Bxt.7. In his corss-examination the Returning Officer stated that Ext.7 was the electoral roll which was brought from his custody. The name of Lanka Bari appears at serial No.423 of part No.133 in this electoral roll, Ext.7. He further admitted that there appears to be some error in nothing the serial number and part number with regard to the name of the proposer in the order passed by him. In view of his own admission that the name of the proposer of the petitioner. Gomeya Purty, appeared in the proper column, serial number and part number of the electoral roll as given in the nomination papers, there does not appear to be any justification for the rejection of the second nomination paper of the petitioner, Gomeya Purty in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, both the nomination papers of the petitioner, Gomeya purty, were rejected arbitrarily and improperly by the Returning Officer. 30. Therefore, both the nomination papers of the petitioner, Gomeya purty, were rejected arbitrarily and improperly by the Returning Officer. 30. In this connection it is relevant to state the view expressed by the supreme Court in a ruling reported in A. I. R.1984 Supreme Court, 1513, ganu Ram V/s. Rikhi Ram Kaundal and others, in which Hon ble the Supreme court has held that in a constituency whem 90 per cent of the electorates in this country consists of iliterate and uneducated rural folk totally unacquainted with the literacy of the rules and technicalities of procedure pertaining to election, the court has to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the provision contained in Sec.33 (2) of the Act rather than to adopt a narrow, rigid, technical and purely literal construction. In this case although the requirement of law as that a declaration should be made but the candidate had filed caste certificate which was accepted as proper declaration in view of the nature of the constituency. 31. Similar view was expressed in a ruling reported in AIR. (Sic) Patna, (Sic) (paragraph 11) in which it was held that the Returning Officer is required to exercsie proper discretion vested in him to a proper manner so that no one is prejudiced by his order. Thus, it has been established that a liberal consideration* of technicalities is required to be given in a constituency meant for scheduled caste and schedule j tribe in the historical background stated by the Supreme court. 32. From what has been discussed, expressed and held above, it has been clearly established beyond all doubts that both the nomination papers of the petitioner Gomeya Purty of election petition No, 8,83 (R) were improperly and illegally rejected which contained all the valid requirements of law. It appears to be an arbitrary and careless exercise of discretion of the Returning Officer which has unnecessarily caused a set-back in the process of election and wasting of time, energy and money involved in it. From these findings the necessary consequences will undoubtedly fall as required under Sec.100 (c) of ths r. P. Act 1951 and the election of respondent No.1, Radhe munda, is to be set aside. 33. Issue No.3.-This issue was not pressed. From the materials on record, it appears that the nomination paper of the elected candidate wax not improperly accepted. From these findings the necessary consequences will undoubtedly fall as required under Sec.100 (c) of ths r. P. Act 1951 and the election of respondent No.1, Radhe munda, is to be set aside. 33. Issue No.3.-This issue was not pressed. From the materials on record, it appears that the nomination paper of the elected candidate wax not improperly accepted. Since this issue has not been pressed, no detailed finding is necessary. 34. Issue No.4.- The case of both the petitioners in both the election petitions is that Sonaram Nag is Tamariya by caste and not a member of scheduled tribe and as such, his nomination paper was improperly accepted. He had filed four nomination papers which are Exts.10 to 10/c. Ext.9 to 9/c are four nomination papers of Bagmaria Badra. Ext.11 is the recods of right and ext.1 is the final result sheet of the election Ext.8 is the list of scheduled tribes which shows that Tamariyas are backward casce Ext.14 is the records of. right of Sonaram Nag which indicates that he was Tamariya by caste and admittedly, according to Ext.8, Tamariyas are not the member of scheduled tribes, rather, they are members of backward caste So, from the documents also it has been shown that Sonaram Nag was Tamariya by caste. 35. In this connection the evidence of P. W.1, Gomeya Purty, is relevant which indicates that Sonaram Nag did not belong to scheduled tribe which has not been challange in the cross-examination, rather, in the cross-examination he confirmed that Sonaram Nag belongs to Tamariya caste and stated that tamariya caste is not included in the list of scheduled tribe, Ext.8 P. W.3 has also stated that Sonaram Nag belongs to Tamariya caste of non-schedule tribe. His nomination paper was wrongly accepted which has not been challanged in the cross-examination. There has been no denial in the evidence of the respondent-witnesses. Therefore, on this point the evidence is practically ex-pane which is supported by the evidence discussed above. In such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that Sonaram Nag did not belong to scheduled tribe and, as such, his nomination paper was improperly accepted- 36. According to Sec.3 of the R. P. Act only a person who is qualified to be chosen is only scheduled caste or scheduled tribe being an electorate of that assembly Constituency and he can only contest the election. 37. According to Sec.3 of the R. P. Act only a person who is qualified to be chosen is only scheduled caste or scheduled tribe being an electorate of that assembly Constituency and he can only contest the election. 37. The improper acceptance of the nomination papers of Sonaram Nag, by itself, cannot affect the validity of the election unless it is shown that it has materially affected the result of the same. Ext.12 indicates that he got only 559 votes. This small quantity of votes polled by Sonaram Nag has, in fact, not affected materially affected the election because if this entire votes polled by sonaram Nag is added to the next candidate who had secured the highest number of votes even then it will not change. the nature of the result of the election. In these circumstances the improper acceptance of the nomination papers of Sonaram Nag has not materially affected the result of the election and hold accordingly, 38. It is should be noted here that the election petition Muktidani Sumbrui (INC) had secured total number of votes 12,906, the elected candidate, Radhe munda (BJP) had secured 14,564 votes and Sonaram Nag had secured only 559 votes. These figures will show that the next candidate who had secured the highest number of votes was the petitioner, Muktidani Sumbrui. In this circumstance, if the entire votes polled by Sonaram Nag is added to the votes polled by the petitioner, Muktidani Sumbrui, even then that will be much below than the total number of votes polled by the elected candidate, Radhe Munda. Apart from this, there is no other pleading or material to hold that Sonaram Nag could have secrued more votes. This circumstance also confirms my view aforesaid finding that the improper acceptance of the nomination papers of sonaram Nag has not materially affected the election. 39. Issue Nos.5, 6,and 7.-These issues have not been pressed. The allegation of corrupt practice or any illegality involved under the R. P. Act or any other Act has not been pressed. The parties have also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on this point and, in fact, these issues are deemed to have been withdrawn in view of the want of specific evidence or any of these issues. Therefore, these issues are accordingly disposed of as not pressed, 40. The parties have also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on this point and, in fact, these issues are deemed to have been withdrawn in view of the want of specific evidence or any of these issues. Therefore, these issues are accordingly disposed of as not pressed, 40. Issue Nos.8 and 9.-So far issue No.8 is concerned the second part of this issue that the petitioner Muktidani Sumbrui is entitled to be declared elected has not been pressed. There is nothing to show that this petitioner could have secured more votes than that of the elected candidate. Neither there is any evidence adduced on this point nor there is any documentary evidence. In these circumstances, the claim of this petitioner to be elected after setting aside the election of the elected candidate cannot be granted. But, in view of the findings arrived at above that both the nomination papers of Shri Gomeya purty were illegally and improperly rejected, the consequence directly falls under Sec.100 (1) (c) of the R. P. Act, which requires that the election of the elected candidate, under the given circumstances, should be declared as illegal and void. The relief claim in Election Petition No.8/85, therefore, can be granted. 41. In the result, the election petition No.8/85 (R) filed by Shri Gomeya purty is allowed andthe election petition No.7/85 (R) filed by Mrs. Muktidani sumbrui is partly allowed. The election of responeent No.1, Radhe Munda held in the month of March, 1985 from Chaibasa reserved S. T. Constituency No.295, is hereby declared as illegal and void. Both petitions decided accordingly