Judgment M.C. Jain, J.-Bhomraj and Purnaram, registered electors of Kolayat Assembly constituency No. 14 of Rajasthan, have filed this election petition against the returned candidate Shri Devisingh Bhati. The election was held on 5-3-85 in pursuance of the notification issued on 1-2-85 under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). As per the programme issued by the Election con-ission of India under Section 30 of the Act, the following dates were appointed:- (a) 8-2-85 (Friday) as the last date for making nomination; (b) 9-2-85 (Saturday) as the date for the scrutiny of nominations; (c) 11-2-85 (Monday) as the last date for withdrawal of the candidature; (d) 5-3-85 (Tuesday) as the date for the poll; (e) 9-3-85 (Saturday) as the date before which the election shall be completed. After rejection of two nomination papers, the following candidates remained in the field:- (1) Shri Devisingh Bhati (respondent), (2) Smt. Kanta Khaturia, (3) Shri Asharam Gehlot, (4) Shri Ganeshram, (5) Shri Deen Dayal. After counting, the respondent Devisingh was declared elected. The petitioners have challenged the election of the respondent on the following grounds:- (1) Thenomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was improperly rejected. He had delivered his nomination paper on 8-2-85 along with the certified copy of the electoral roll of Bikaner Assembly constituency, in which, his age was mentioned as 30 years. copy of the electoral roll was the part of the nomination paper. The rejection of his nomination paper is alleged to be improper because his name was once shown in the list of validly nominated candidates. The date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers was 9-2-85 and the date for withdrawal of the same was 11-2-85, therefore, the returning officer was not competent to reject the nomination paper on 11-2-85. His nomination paper also could not be rejected when he had submitted the certified copy of the entry of the electoral roll showing his age as 30 years, and that certified copy was a part of the nomination paper. (2) The District Election Officer, Bikaner established additional polling stations for the electors of seven villages namely: (1) Chila Kashniir, (2) Gulam-Wala, (3) Kandharli, (4) Nokha urf Daiya, (5) Lakhasar, (6) Bichwal and (7) Panwarwala by his order dt. 19-2-85 purported to have been issued with the consent of the Election Commission. (2) The District Election Officer, Bikaner established additional polling stations for the electors of seven villages namely: (1) Chila Kashniir, (2) Gulam-Wala, (3) Kandharli, (4) Nokha urf Daiya, (5) Lakhasar, (6) Bichwal and (7) Panwarwala by his order dt. 19-2-85 purported to have been issued with the consent of the Election Commission. The establishment of these additional polling stations was illegal, being in violation of Rule 49 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. No notification as envisaged by rules was published 15 days before the date of poll. The non-compliance of the rule has materially afflected the result of the election. (3) Smt. Kama Khaturia was a formidable candidate of Congress-I. In order to jeopardise the chances of her victory, false and highly defamatory statements affecting her personal character and conduct were published in the form of a pamphlet as well as in the weekly paper ‘Kranti Bigul’, on the night, intervening 4/5-3-85. The author of the said pamphlet is Shri Onkarsingh Rajput r/o Bikaner Mohalla Chotina Kua. He is an active member of Janta Party’ for the last several years and had actively campaigned for the respondent. Shri Mohan Sharma. the Editor of ‘Kranti Bigul’ actively supported and campaigned for the respondent. Copies of the pamphlet and of the paper ‘Kranti Bigul’ were widely distributed and published in the entire constituency on the night intervening 4/5-3-85 as well as while the polling was in progress and particularly near the polling stations to the voters. Their p ublication was done by the respondent himself , his election agent Shri Davendrasingh as well as by his agents/ workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. The petitioners submitted a schedule annexed to the petition giving the instances of the publication and full particulars relating to the time, date, place and persons responsible for the distribution as well as the persons to whom the same were distributed. The said pamphlet and the said paper contained defamatory statements which were false and were believed to be false by the respondent and his election agent and other agents and workers of the respondent and which were not believed to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of Smt. Kanta Khaturia and the aforesaid statements were reasonable calculated to prejudice the prospects of her election. 2. 2. It was prayed that the petition may be accepted and the election of the respondent may be quashed and set aside. .3. Reply to the election petition was filed by the respondent. The grounds of challenge of the respondent’s .election were traversed. It was alleged that the respondent, his electron agent Shri Davendrasingh and his agents or workers did not commit any corrupt practice with the consent of the respondent and/or his election agents. The allegations of the petitioners in this regard are absolutely wrong, unfounded and without any basis. 4. It was further alleged that the Returning Officer did not improperly reject the nomination paper of Shri Mohd. Ali and the allegation of the petitioner in this regard is incorrect and untenable. Shri Mohammed Ali did not fill in his age in the nomination paper and left the column of age blank. The Returning Officer, therefore, rejected the nomination paper on 9-2-85, the day for the scrutiny. Shri Mohd. Ali however, requested the Returning Officer that Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court have held that the omission to mention the age in the nomination paper was not fatal and that, he should be allowed time for showing the rulings to that effect. The Returning Officer then allowed time up to 11-2-85 till 11.00 a.m. and he made it clear that if Shri Mohd. Ali failed to do so his nomination paper would be treated as invalid and rejected. The Returning Officer waited till 11.20 a.m. but Shri Mohammed Ali did not turn up, therefore, his nomination paper stood rejected. It was alleged that it is obligatory for the candidate to mention age in the nomination paper and its non-mention in the nomination paper is fatal. Filing of the certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll was of no avail. The requirement regarding the filing of the certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll of the constituency where the name of the candidate is registered, is there when such candidate files the nomination paper for another constituency for the purpose of satisiring that he is a duly registered elector and the Returning Officer is not at all concerned with the age mentioned in such entry. Shri Mohd. Shri Mohd. Ali did not place any reliance on the age mentioned in the certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll for Bikaner Constituency and he sought time for showing the rulings to the effect that non-mention of age in the nomination paper was not at all fatal. It is not open to the petitioners to place reliance on the age mentioned in the certified copy in the electoral roll for Bikaner Constituency. Further, according to the nomination form, his name was entered at S. No. 504 part No. 123 of the electoral roll of Bikaner Assembly Constituency while he filed certified copy of the entry at S. No. 504 part No. 123 of the said constituency, therefore, the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was liable to be rejected even on this ground alone. In any case, the petitioners cannot rety on the age mentioned in the certified copy of the entry at S.No. 504 part No. 123 of the electoral roll of Bikaner Assembly Constituency, when according to the nomination paper his name was entered at S. No. 504 part 123. It was denied that after conclusion of the scrutiny, the name of Shri Mohd. Ali was shown in the list of validly nominated candidates. The list did not show the name of Shri Mohd. Ali and the allegatidn of the petitioners to the contrary is wholly incorrect. At the foot of the above list, the note entered therein clearly shows that the name of Shri Mohammed Ali was not shown in the above list of validly nominated candidates and that, he was allowed time till 11.00 a.m. on 11-2-85. On the other hand, the list issued in pro forma-Il of the candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, clearly shows that Shri Mohd. Ali was given time up to 11.00 a.m. on 11-2-85 to rebut. Sub-paras (a) to (d) of para 8 were denied. 5. The contents of para 9 relating to the ground of establishment of additional polling stations were denied. It was admitted that the District Election Officer, Bikaner issued an order dt. 19-2-85 for the establishment of seven new polling stations on the approval of the proposal by the Election Commission of India, by telegraphic order dt. 16-2-85. Rule 49 has no application. It was admitted that the District Election Officer, Bikaner issued an order dt. 19-2-85 for the establishment of seven new polling stations on the approval of the proposal by the Election Commission of India, by telegraphic order dt. 16-2-85. Rule 49 has no application. It was alleged that according to the instructions issued in the form of Handbook for Returning Officers published by the Chief Election Commission of India on 1-1-84, the polling stations are required to be set up in such a manner that ordinarily no voter is required to travel more than two kilometres for recording his vote. Since, the answering-respondent and various other candidates including the Congress-(I) candidate Smt. Kanta Khaturia sent proposal to the District Election Officer for setting up more polling stations, the District Election Officer, on receiving telegraphic order dt. 16-2-85 established the alleged new polling stations and the petitioners cannot make any grievance on that account. The District Election Officer had informed to all the political parties and the concerned candidates about the establishment of the said polling stations. The District Election Officer also established five additional polling stations in Lunkaransar Assembly Constituency No. 12 and one polling station in Nokha Assembly Constituency No. 15. It was done on the request of the candidates and the petitioners are not entitled to make any grievance. There has been no non-compliance of the Rules relating to the establishment of seven new polling stations. .6. The ground of corrupt practice mentioned in para 10 was denied. It was denided that Smt. Kanta Khaturia was a formidable candidate. She was defeated in 1977 General Election by Shri Manakchand Surana. She was further defeated in 1980 General Election by the respondent by a margin of 1950 votes and she was again defeated by the respondent in the present election by a margin of 10,594 votes. There was no possibility of her success in 1985 General Election. As regards, the publication of pamphlet and weekly paper (Kranti Bigul), it was alleged that the answering-respondent has no knowledge about their publication. It was denied that the ‘Kranti Bigul’ contains any defamatory caption ‘Kanta Girftar’. It was also alleged that the .answering-respondent has no connection whatsoever, with Shri Onkarsingh Rajput. The answering-respondent does not know the author of the pamphlet. It was denied that the ‘Kranti Bigul’ contains any defamatory caption ‘Kanta Girftar’. It was also alleged that the .answering-respondent has no connection whatsoever, with Shri Onkarsingh Rajput. The answering-respondent does not know the author of the pamphlet. The said pamphlet was not published to the knowledge of the answering-respondent or his election agent Shri. Davendrasingh or any of the agents/workers during the election, and they have no knowledge about Onkarsingh Rajput referred to in sub-para 3 of para 10. It was denied that the said Shri Onkarsingh Rajput is an active member of Janta Party for the last several years and actively campaigned for the respondent. It was denied that Shri Mohan Sharma actively supported and campaigned for the respondent. Shri Sharma is entitled to have his own independent views and the petitioners are not entitled to draw any inference from what has appeared in the said paper. The contents of paras 11 and 12 and its sub-paras were denied. A plea was taken in the additional plea that the affidavits filed by the petitioners in support of the corrupt practice alleged by them are neither in the prescribed form nor they are in accordance with law and they deserve to be ignored in the end, it was prayed that the election petition be dismissed. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- .(1) Whether the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds specified in paras 8(a), (b) and (c) of the election petition? (2)(a) Whether the statements contained in Amixs. 1 and 2 are false and believed to be false and which were not believed to be true, in relation to the personal character and conduct of Smt. Kanta Khaturia by the publishers/distributors of the said pamphlet and newspaper. .(b) If so, whether Amixs. 1 and 2 were published by the respondent, his Election Agent and his agents/workers with the consent of the respondent and his Election Agent as specified in paras Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the election petition and whether the statements contained in Anmxs. 1 and 2 were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of Smt. Kanta Khaturia? 10, 11 and 12 of the election petition and whether the statements contained in Anmxs. 1 and 2 were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of Smt. Kanta Khaturia? .(c) If so, whether the respondent Shri Devisingh Bhati has committed the corrupt practice as specified in Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and, if so, whether his election is liable to be set aside? .(3) Whether the establishment of seven new polling stations was illegal on the grounds specified in para 9 of the election petition, and, if so, whether large number of voters were prevented from exercising their right of franchise and whether the election of the respondent is materially affected on that ground? .(4) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to? Additional Issue :- 1. Whether the additional affidavits of the petitioners Bhomraj and Purnaram dt. 15-5-86 alleged in the election petition is no affidavits in the eye of law and deserves to be ignored? 8. At the trial, the petitioners examined PW 1 Bhomraj, PW 2 Khinvraj, PW 3 Mohanlal, PW 4 Mangilal, PW 5 Shankerlal, PW 6 Bhanwarlal and PW 7 Babulal. 9. In rebuttal, the respondent examined himself as NPW 1 Devisingh and produced NPW 2 Sardar Ratansingh, NPW 3 Mahesh Prakash Ranga, NPW 4 Satyanarain Sad, NPW 5 Jawaharlal, NPW 6 Naraindas, NPW 7 Jhanwarlal Bothra, NPW 8 Hariram, NPW 9 Udaisingh, NPW 10 Dayaram, NPW 11 Moti Ram, NPW 12 Gumansingh, NPW 13 Dhannaram, NPW 14 Ganesharam, NPW 15 Tikuram, NPW 16 Chandratan, NPW 17 Ramkishan, NPW 18 Chain Singh, NPW 19 Onkar Singh and NPW 20 Davendra Singh. 10. The petitioner produced 15 documents exhibited as Exhibit 1 to Ex 15 and in rebuttal, the respondent produced 16 documents (Exhibit Al1 to Exhibit Al16). 11. I haveheard Mr. M. M. Singhvi, teamed cou’nsel for the petitioners and Mr. L. R. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent. My findings on the issues are asunder:-Issue No. 1 12. This issue relates to the question of improper rejection of the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali by the Returning Officers. So far as the factual aspect of this issue is concerned, the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was rejected on 9-2-85 as the column relating to age was blank and there was no declaration made by the candidate regarding his age in the nomination paper. So far as the factual aspect of this issue is concerned, the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was rejected on 9-2-85 as the column relating to age was blank and there was no declaration made by the candidate regarding his age in the nomination paper. Time was sought by Shri Mohammed Ali to show the rulings on the point that the omission to mention age in the nomination paper is not fatal. The Returning Officer allowed time up to 11-2-85 till 11 a.m. and it was made clear that if he failed to do so his nomination paper will be treated as invalid and rejected. The Returning Officer waited till 11.20 a.m. but Shri Mohammed Ali did not turn up, so his nomination paper was rejected. His name did not appear in the list (Exhibit A1) of validly nominated candidates. On the contrary, his name appeared in the list (Exhibit A2) of the candidates whose nomination papers, were rejected. The Returning Officer passed the following orders on the back of the nomination paper on 9-2-85 and 11-2-85. “Exhibit 5 Rejected. Age not written in column ‘-d of the nomination form. However, candidate stated that Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court of India have noted that this omission is not fatal to the nomination. Hence, candidate is given time up to 11 a.m. on 11-2-85 to present these rulings failing which the nomination will be treated as invalid and rejected. Sd/ -9-2-85” “1 1-2-85 It is now 11.20 hours. No representation has been made by the candidate so far. His nomination paper accordingly is rejected. Sd/ -11-2-85” 13. The assertion made in paras 8(a) and 8(b), therefore, are wrong and are not in any way substantiated. 14. Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the column for age was not filled in by Shri Mohammed Ali but Shri Mohammed Ali had submitted the certified copy of the electoral list (Exhibit 3) of Bikaner City Assembly Constituency, in which, his name appeared at S. No. 514 part No. 123 and in the column of age, his age was mentioned as 30 years. The certified copy of the entry (Exhibit 3) in the electoral list of Bikaner City Assembly Constituency was the part of the nomination paper and it was obligatory for the Returning Officer to have looked into the certified copy of the entry. The certified copy of the entry (Exhibit 3) in the electoral list of Bikaner City Assembly Constituency was the part of the nomination paper and it was obligatory for the Returning Officer to have looked into the certified copy of the entry. The Returning Officer erred in law in overlooking the age mentioned in the electoral list and he improperly rejected the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali. The certified copy of the entry was the integral part of the nomination paper filed by Shri Mohammed Ali and that, could not have been ignored in law. Reliance was placed by him on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh vs. Pritam Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1626 , in which, the object of the provision contained in Section 33(5) of the Act was considered. 15. Section 3(5) of the Act provides that where the Candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constitutency or of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless it has been filed along with the nomination paper, be-produced before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny. 16. It was observed in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) that “the object of producing the copy under Section 33(5) is to enable the returning officer to check whether the candidate and the proposer are qualified or not, one for the purpose of standing and the other for purpose of proposing. In order to check this, the returning officer must have a complete copy of the relevant part. If the copy is not a complete copy, it is possible that a name which may have been included in the draft or in the first amendment may have been excluded in the second amendment made on the basis of an order of the appellate officer therefore, to enable the returning officer to decide whether a candidate is qualified to stand, or whether a proposer is qualified to propose he must have a complete copy of the relevant part of the roll. If he has, not a complete copy, he will not be able to decide whether, the candidate dr the proposer has the necessary’ qualification. If he has, not a complete copy, he will not be able to decide whether, the candidate dr the proposer has the necessary’ qualification. It was further observed that Section 33(5) requires that it is the copy produced by the candidate which should show whether he is qualified or not and for that purpose a copy produced by the candidate should be complete whether it is of the roll or of the relevant part thereof To such a case Section 36(4) has no application. That provision is to the effect that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. But the non-production of a complete copy of the relevant part, in our opinion is a defect of a substantial character for it makes it impossidble for the returning officer to decide whether the candidate is qualified or not. Qualification for standing for election is a matter of substantial character We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in the view it took that the production of an incomplete copy of the relevant part was not a defect of a substantial character which would make the nomination paper liable to be rejected. The fact that the returning officer rejected the nomination paper on some other ground is of no consequence. If there was in truth a defeat of a substantial character in the matter of compliance with Section 33 of the Act; the nomination paper was liable to be rejected, and if it was so rejected, rejection would be proper whatever may have been the reason given by the returning officer. In the present case, we are of the opinion, that the production of a copy of the electoral roll which is incomplete is a defect of a substantial character. This defect will invalidate all the nomination papers. The nomination papers of Wazir Singh were rightly rejected by the returing officer though he gave different reasons for doing so.” 17. Mr. In the present case, we are of the opinion, that the production of a copy of the electoral roll which is incomplete is a defect of a substantial character. This defect will invalidate all the nomination papers. The nomination papers of Wazir Singh were rightly rejected by the returing officer though he gave different reasons for doing so.” 17. Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Returning Officer has to see as to whether the candidate is qualified to stand and for that purpose, the entry of age in the electoral roll would be relevant and after looking into the entry of age in the roll, he has to satisir that the candidate is qualified to stand and contest the election. 18. Mr. Singhvi, further placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganuram vs. RiKhiram Kaundal, AIR 1984 SC 1513 . In that case, there was no compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act which required that the nomination paper relating to the reserved constituency must contain a declaration by a candidate speciiring the caste or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste, or as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State. In that case no written declaration had been made by the appellant specifying the caste and area in relation to which that caste is a Scheduled Caste of the State but along with the nomination paper, the appellant had filed as an annexure thereto a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate certifying that the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste namely ‘Lohar. It was observed in that case that (para 5):-The said certificate was appended to the nomination paper obviously with the sole purpose and intention of making it known to the Returning Officer and all others concerned that the appellant is filing his nomination as a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste namely ‘Lohar’ and it was in proof of that assertion and for eliminating doubt or Controversy in the matter that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s certificate was produced. The High Court has taken the view that since Section 33 of the Act requires that the nomination paper must be in the prescribed form and Form 2B is a self -contained one the filing of any enclosure or certificate along with the Form is not contemplated. We are unable to agree with this view. When the nomination paper has been made in the prescribed form there is no legal prohibition against the other requisite particulars be ing furnished in a separate paper appended to the form instead of writing them out in the form itself , This is very often done in the matter of filing returns of Income tax, Wealth-tax etc. In such cases the annexure appended to the form should be treated as part of the nomination paper. We are therefore of opinion that the certificate which was produced by the appellant as an annexure to the nomination paper has to be treated as forming part of the nomination paper and the declaration contained therein that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste of ‘Lohar’ must be understood and treated as a declaration by the appellant in the nomination form within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 33. We have to remember that we are dealing with nomination papers pertaining to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who for well known historical reasons, are unfortunately, extremely backward socially, economically and educationally in comparison with other sections of our people. In such a context we consider that the Court has to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the provisions contained in Section 33(2) of the Act rather than adopt a narrow, rigid technical and purely literal construction.” It was further observed that:-(para 6) It is manifest that the legislative purpose underlying Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act is that when a nomination paper is filed in respect of a reserved seat in any constituency there must be a clear specification by the candidate of the particular caste or tribe to which he belongs and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe of the State. This requirement is fully satisfied in the present case because by producing the certificate of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as an annexure to his nomination paper the appellant had clearly made it known that he was filing the nomination as a candidate belonging to the ‘Lohar’ caste, which is admittedly a Scheduled Caste in the entirety of the area of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also significant that no objection whatever was raised against the nomination filed by the appellant at the time of scrutiny. The Returning Officer had published a notice of nominations under Section 35 of the Act and in the said notice it was expressly stated that the appellant had filed his nomination as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste namely ‘Lohar’. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances’ of the case and the legal position as explained above, we consider that the High Court was in error in holding that the nomination paper filed by the appellant was not valid and its acceptance by the Returning Officer was improper.” 19. Mr. M. M. Singhvi, also placed reliance on a Divisional Bench decision of this Court in Gangaram vs. Taruram AIR 1984 Rajasthan 183. This case relates to the election of Sarpanch and relevant, provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Flection Rules came up for consideration. There were no provisions in those rules similar to those contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 33 and Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act. That was not a case relating to omission of declaration regarding the age. It was observed that omission ro mention the ward number of the voters’ list and giving wrong number of ward number of the voters’ list in the nomination paper would not justiir rejection of the nomination paper, if the identity of the concerned candidate is established from the voters’ list. 20. Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred to a decision of this Court in the Election Petition No. 8 of 1985 --Anand Purohit vs. Birad Mal Singhvi, decided on 18-2-87 in which nomination papers of Hukamichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were rejected on the basis that the ages mentioned in the electoral roll were less than 25 years and value was attached to the age entry in the electoral roll. That decision is not of much relevance as no question of omission of age in the nomination paper arose for consideration. 21. Mr. Singhvi. emphasized that when the certified copy of the entry in the voters’ list was appended to the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed AH then, it should have been taken by the Returning Officer to be the candidate’s declaration regarding his age as the candidate is relying on the entries made in the voters’ list with regard to all particulars including the particulars of age and omission of age in the