S. N. BHARGAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition challenging the election of Shri Sonam Chyoda Lepcha, respondent No. 2 as member of the Sikkim State Assembly from Constituency No. 23 Djongu (BL) held in November 1994. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was also a candidate in the said election and had filed his nomination papers as an official candidate of the Rising Sun Party (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as the RSP ). Although, his nomination papers were found to be valid yet he was not allowed the party symbol of RSP as he had failed to submit the specimen signature of the authorised person of the RSP before 3 p. m. an 27-10-1994 which was the last date for withdrawal. Consequently he was treated as an independent candidate and was allotted the free symbol "ladder". Four persons contested this election and respondent No. 2 won the election by a margin of only 47 votes. ( 3 ) THIS election petition was filed in this Court on 23-1-95. Notices were issued to the respondents and reply was filed by respondent No. 1 on 18-5-1995, by respondent No. 2 on 19-5-95 and by respondent No. 3 on 18-5-95. On an application made on behalf of the respondents, the name of respondent No. 4, the Election Commissioner of India was deleted from the array of respondents vide this Court's order dated 9-6-95. Following issues were framed on 16-6-95. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Whether Rule 13 (d) of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is only directory and there was substantial compliance. 2. Whether the order of the Returning Officer, Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94 treating petitioner as independent candidate and not allotting him the reserved symbol of the recognised party 'rising Sun' is invalid and discriminatory. 3. Has the result of the Election of Respondent No. 2 been materially affected by the ruling of Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94. 4. Result. ( 4 ) PETITIONER has examined himself as PW-1, Mr. Ram Prasad Dhakal as PW-2, Mr. Padam Singh Katwal as PW-3, Mr. Loden Tshering Lepcha as PW-4, Mr. Lazang Lepcha as PW-5 and Mr. Choden Lepcha as PW-6. Respondent No. 1, examined himself as DW-1. Arguments were heard on 15th, 16th and 17th November, 1995 and the order was reserved. ( 4 ) PETITIONER has examined himself as PW-1, Mr. Ram Prasad Dhakal as PW-2, Mr. Padam Singh Katwal as PW-3, Mr. Loden Tshering Lepcha as PW-4, Mr. Lazang Lepcha as PW-5 and Mr. Choden Lepcha as PW-6. Respondent No. 1, examined himself as DW-1. Arguments were heard on 15th, 16th and 17th November, 1995 and the order was reserved. ( 5 ) PETITIONER in his election petition has asserted that he was an elderly politician of Sikkim and had devoted most of his time and energy in serving the people of the State through various political parties in the State of Sikkim. He had defeated Shri Kazi Lhendup Dorji Khangsarpa, the first and former Chief Minister of Sikkim, in the Assembly Elections held in 1979. He was also a member of the Council of Ministers during 1979 to 1984 and again became a Minister for a brief period in May 1984 when Shri B. B. Gurung was appointed the Chief Minister of Sikkim. He has been actively involved in the elections held periodically in the State. For the 1994 Assembly Election, he had filed his nomination papers as an official candidate of the RSP which is a duly registered political party under Section 29a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with the reserved symbol of "rising Sun" since 1979. The petitioner was allotted party ticket by the RSP and he had in his nomination paper filed on October 24, 1994 for the 23 Djongu (BL) Assembly Constituency mentioned that he was a validly nominated candidate of RSP. Form B was also submitted in which the petitioner was shown as an official candidate of the RSP. From B was duly signed by Shri R. C. Poudyal, President RSP. After scrutiny, the Returning Officer published the list of all the validly nominated candidates in Form 4 showing the petitioner as an official candidate of RSP. 27-10-1994 was the last date fixed for the withdrawal of candidature. However, due to the sudden death of a near relative of the petitioner on that date, he could not be personally present before the Returning Officer but his representative, Tutu Lepcha submitted Form-B, duly filled and signed by Shri Ram Chandra Poudyal, President of the RSP in the office of respondent No. 1 in accordance with Order 13 (b) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. On 27-10-94, the Returning Officer published the final list of contesting candidates in Form 7a showing the petitioner as an independent candidate with the free symbol 'ladder'. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to contact the Returning Officer but he was not available in Mangan. Neither the Assistant Returning Officer nor any other member of the Office could hand over or supply to the petitioner a copy of the order alleged to have been passed by the Returning officer on 27-10-94 i. e. before publishing the list of contesting candidates. The list was also not displayed on the notice board of the office of the Returning Officer. The petitioner could obtain a copy of the said order of the Returning Officer only on 2-11-94in Gangtok. On 3-11-94, petitioner sent a Fax message to the Chief Election Commissioner urging him to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to revoke/modify the said order of the Returning Officer. Petitioner also submitted a representation to the Returning Officer to revoke/modify the said order. However, the petitioner did not receive any reply to his FAX Message or his representation. Petitioner again submitted a representation on 7-11-94 but with no result. He again addressed a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner on 8-11-94 requesting him to intervene in the matter urgently, but, it was all futile. According to the petitioner, the order of the Returning Officer was not passed on 27-10-94 i. e. before publishing the list of contesting candidates but was passed subsequently. He has further submitted that this order was illegal, discriminatory, and in gross violation of the provisions of Section 38 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules 10 (4) and 11 of Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and paragraphs 8 (2) and 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has materially affected the result of the election. The entire electorate of the petitioner's constituency wanted to support him as an official candidate of RSP with the election symbol of 'rising Sun', but, since he was declared as an independent candidate with the free symbol 'ladder', the voters of the constituency were misled and this ruined his election prospects. Further the impugned ruling placed the petitioner in an utterly disadvantageous position compared to the other candidates set up by other political parties. Further the impugned ruling placed the petitioner in an utterly disadvantageous position compared to the other candidates set up by other political parties. He has further submitted that in the other constituencies the candidature on behalf of RSP was accepted by the Returning Officers even though Form-A was not submitted. Therefore, this amounts to gross discrimination. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, Returning Officer in his reply has admitted that RSP is a duly registered political party under Section 29a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and that the RSP had been allotted 'rising Sun' as a reserved election symbol since 1979. He has further admitted that after scrutinising the nomination papers filed before him, he had published a list of validly nominated candidates. In that list the last column provides for "party Affiliation" and here the name of the party which has been indicated by the person filing the nomination papers is written. Against the name of the petitioner RSP was written on the basis of the statements made in the nomination papers filed by the petitioner. He asserted that no election agent or any representative on behalf of the petitioner was present at the time fixed for allotment of symbols and, therefore, the copy of the order given by him could not be handed over to the petitioner. Further he has stated that since the petitioner had failed to submit the specimen signature of the authorised person of the party in Form A by 3 p. m. On 27-10-1994, which is a requirement under the relevant provisions of law, he could not be deemed to be set up by the RSP and could not be allotted the party symbol of RSP. Thus the answering respondent had no option but to allot him a free symbol treating him to be an independent candidate. List of the contesting candidates was displayed on the notice board of the Returning Officer on 27-10-94. He has further submitted that Order 13 (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is mandatory and since the petitioner failed to comply with the same, he had no other alternative but to treat him as an independent candidate. List of the contesting candidates was displayed on the notice board of the Returning Officer on 27-10-94. He has further submitted that Order 13 (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is mandatory and since the petitioner failed to comply with the same, he had no other alternative but to treat him as an independent candidate. Since the printing of the ballot papers had to start immediately after the list of contesting candidates was prepared and published, the answering respondent personally carried the list of contesting candidates to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer at Gangtok and handed it to him in the night of 27-10-94. The order given by the Returning Officer is an important document and has therefore, to be kept in safe custody by the Returning Officer. There is no provision in the Election Law for the display of such an order on the notice board or to despatch it to the candidate concerned. The Returning Officer remained in Gangtok on 28th and 29th October, 1994 due to official business and returned tomangan on 30-10-1994 and stayed in Mangan till 1-11-94, but the petitioner did not turn up to collect the copy of the order. ( 7 ) ). Respondent No. 2, Shri Sonam Chyoda Lepcha in his reply to the petition has submitted that he had secured 1550 votes in the said election whereas the party candidate nominated by SSP had polled only 1503 votes. Another candidate, Shri Chophel lechpa set up by the Sikkim Democratic Front received only 782 votes and the petitioner polled only 9 votes and lost even his deposit. He has also submitted that the provision of Section 13 (d) was incumbent on the petitioner who had to file Form A before 3 p. m. on the last date of withdrawal i. e. 27-10-94. Since the petitioner did not comply with this mandatory provision, the Returning Officer was duty bound to treat him as an independent candidate. He has further submitted that the result of the election has not been materially affected so far as it concerns the returned candidate and, therefore, the election petition should be dismissed. Respondent No. 3, who is the Chief Electoral Officer in the State of Sikkim has also filed a reply to the petition on the same lines as that of the Returning Officer, Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3, who is the Chief Electoral Officer in the State of Sikkim has also filed a reply to the petition on the same lines as that of the Returning Officer, Respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) PETITIONER has submitted a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and has again asserted the facts mentioned in the election petition and has submitted that the provisions of Section 13 (d) of the Election Symbols Act are only directory and there was sufficient compliance of the same inasmuch as form B had been received by the Returning Officer before 3 p. m. on 27-10-94. Further he has stated that Form B signed by Shri R. C. Poudyal, President of the RSP shows him as an authorised candidate on behalf of the RSP. Therefore, the order of the Returning Officer being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, has seriously prejudiced the petitioner and materially affected the election result. Thus the election petition deserves to be allowed. ( 9 ) PETITIONER in his statement on oath has supported his allegations made in the election petition and in the rejoinder. ( 10 ) PW - 2, Mr. Ram Prasad Dhakal has submitted that they had been canvassing for the petitioner as an official candidate of the RSP, but since he was not given the symbol of RSP, they were all disappointed and felt let down by him and thus the petitioner could not succeed in the election. ( 11 ) SO also PW - 3, Padam Singh Katwal has stated that they had been canvassing for the petitioner as an official candidate of the RSP but when he was declared as an independent candidate with the symbol 'ladder' they felt deceived. He further stated that if the petitioner had got an opportunity to contest on the RSP ticket, the election results would have been different. ( 12 ) PW - 4, Loden Tshering Lepcha has stated that a grave injustice was caused to the petitioner when he was denied the official symbol of RSP. Had the petitioner been allowed the RSP symbol, it would have made a difference in the election results but since he was denied the same, he could not canvass for him effectively and this helped the winning candidate. Had the petitioner been allowed the RSP symbol, it would have made a difference in the election results but since he was denied the same, he could not canvass for him effectively and this helped the winning candidate. ( 13 ) PW - 5, Lazang Lepcha has submitted that grave injustice was caused to the petitioner when the Returning Officer did not allot the RSP symbol to him. Due to the denial of the party symbol, the petitioner could not canvass effectively and thus the election results were affected and the sitting MLA benefited by it. ( 14 ) DW - 1, Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Returning Officer has stated on oath the facts which he had mentioned in his reply to the election petition and has asserted that he had passed the order on 27-10-94 before publishing the list of contesting candidates and had published the list of contesting candidates and displayed it on the notice board on the same day i. e. on 27-10-1994. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement under para. 13 (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is not mandatory and the petitioner had substantiallycomplied with the requirements under Paragraph 13. Paragraph 13 (d) is in the nature of procedural guidelines. The requirement of Section 13 (d) may be treated as mandatory in case there were more than one candidate claiming to be the official candidate of a political party. The main purpose of this provision is to avoid any confusion. In the present case there was only one official candidate of a recognised political party who had filed his nomination paper and Form B in the office of the Returning Officer. Form B bore the signature and seal of the President of the Political party and no one had challenged the authenticity of the signature of Mr. R. C. Poudyal or his position as the President of the RSP. Further, he has submitted that the procedural enactments should be construed liberally and substantial compliance should be sufficient. In this connection he has placed reliance on K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687; Veluswami v. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; R. B. Sugar Co. v. Rampur Municipality, AIR 1965 SC 895; Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027 and Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1980 SC 303. In this connection he has placed reliance on K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687; Veluswami v. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; R. B. Sugar Co. v. Rampur Municipality, AIR 1965 SC 895; Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027 and Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1980 SC 303. He has also submitted that the order dated 27-10-94 of the Returning Officer could not have been passed at Mangan on that date i. e. before publishing the list of contesting candidates as the order has been typed either on a computer or an electronic typewriter and the Returning Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that no electronic typewriter was available at Mangan. He has further submitted that the order dated 27-10-94 was not available to the petitioner till 2-11-94. The result of the election in so far as the Returned Candidate was concerned was affected as the petitioner was wrongfully denied the recognised symbols of Rising Sun of the recognised political party RSP. Petitioner has been nursing his constituency and had canvassed and projected himself as an official candidate of RSP from October 1993. But when he was not treated as an official candidate of RSP by an illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional order of which he did not get a copy till 2-11-94, and was not allowed the use of the symbol 'rising Sun', his voters were thrown into confusion and the 2nd respondent has been benefited by it. Thereafter, the petitioner has been trying to get the order reversed or reviewed but with no results. Thus, he could not canvass effectively and Respondent No. 2 won by a margin of only 47 votes. ( 16 ) IT is obvious that if the petitioner had been given the symbol of RSP, the result of the election so far as the returning candidate was concerned would have been materially affected. In this connection, he placed reliance on Vashist Narain v. Dev Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 513 : (1954 All LJ 525); A. P. H. L. Conference, Shillong v. W. A. Sangma, AIR 1977 SC 2155; Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram, AIR 1984 SC 146 : (1984 All LJ 114) and Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar, AIR 1990 SC 19. In this connection, he placed reliance on Vashist Narain v. Dev Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 513 : (1954 All LJ 525); A. P. H. L. Conference, Shillong v. W. A. Sangma, AIR 1977 SC 2155; Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram, AIR 1984 SC 146 : (1984 All LJ 114) and Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar, AIR 1990 SC 19. ( 17 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the compliance of Section 13 (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968 is mandatory and since the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of Order 13 (d) of the aforesaid Order by not submitting form A, containing the specimen signature of the authorised person of the political party before 3 p. m. on 27-10-94, the Returning Officer had no option to treat the petitioner as an independent candidate and allot him a free symbol. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioner's claim to be the official candidate of RSP is fully justified, legal and proper. He has placed reliance on paragraphs 17. 6, 17. 7 and 17. 8 of the Handbook for candidate published by the Election Commission of India in 1994. If it is taken that Order 13 is procedural then also non-compliance of a procedural statute is fatal when the consequence of not following the procedure is mentioned in the statute. The very language of Order 13 using the word "shall" and "if and only if" shows that the candidate will not be allotted the recognised symbol of the recognised political party, if Order 13 has not been fully complied with. Whenever a statute requires a particular Act to be done in a particular manner and lays down that failure to comply with the samewill lead to a specific conclusion, the requirement is mandatory. He has placed reliance on Babu Ram v. Smt. Prasanni, AIR 1959 SC 93; Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1974 SC l185; M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Handa, AIR 1983 SC 558; V. S. Rahi v. Ram Chambeli, AIR 1984 SC 595; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796; U. S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924. He has further submitted that if there were two interpretations possible, the Court should adopt the interpretation which does not reduce the provision to futility and has placed reliance on Union of India v. Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328 : (1977 Lab IC 1857); Supdt. and Remembrancer, L. A. W. B, v. Abani Maity, AIR 1979 SC 1029 : (1979 Cri LJ 897) and H. S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality, AIR 1962 SC 554. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for Respondent No. 2 has supported and adopted the arguments made by the learned Advocate General. In addition, he has submitted that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the result of the election has been materially affected so far as it concerns the Returned Candidate. Petitioner has not produced any evidence whatsoever to prove material effect. The witnesses produced by the petitioner had supported him and canvassed for him. They have also not shown as to how the result would have been materially affected even though the difference was of only 47 votes. The petitioner ought to have led sufficient satisfactory evidence to prove that in case he was treated as an official candidate of RSP the result of the election would have materially affected so far as it concerned the Returned Candidate and in this connection he placed reliance on Paokai v. Rishang, AIR 1969 SC 663; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purhit, AIR 1988 SC 796; Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram, AIR 1984 SC 146 : (1984 All LJ 114) and Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar, AIR 1990 SC 19. ( 19 ) LET us take Issues Nos. 1 and 2 together which reads as under :1. Whether Rule 13 (d) of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is only directory and there was substantial compliance. 2. Whether the order of the Returning Officer, Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94 treating petitioner as independent candidate and not allotting him the reserved symbol of the recognised party 'rising Sun' is invalid and discriminatory. Whether Rule 13 (d) of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is only directory and there was substantial compliance. 2. Whether the order of the Returning Officer, Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94 treating petitioner as independent candidate and not allotting him the reserved symbol of the recognised party 'rising Sun' is invalid and discriminatory. The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 was published in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 29a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in order to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, for the recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. ( 20 ) ELECTION Commission of India published "handbook for Returning Officers" in 1994 wherein at page 68, it has been mentioned as under :"all recognised National and State Parties have been issued necessary instructions regarding the procedure to be followed in order that candidates sponsored by them may be allotted the symbol reserved for the party. Suitable instructions have also been issued to registered - unrecognised parties regarding procedure to be followed for securing preference in the matter of allotment of symbols to candidates sponsored by them over independent candidates. (m) Facsimile signature of the office bearers of each political party who are authorised to send the notice referred to in clause (d) above will be furnished to you by the political party concerned in the prescribed Form 'a' which is reproduced in Annexure XVIII, Part I and II. This will be helpful to decide the allotment of symbols to candidates set up by political parties. Printed cyclostyled and zerox copies of the aforesaid Form'a' containing the facsimile of specimen signature of the authorised office bearers of the political party (including forms containing the name and signature rubber stamped) should also be accepted. (n) For the purposes of clauses (b) and (c) of paragraph (1 ) above, persons (s) authorised by the party shall send to you individual authorisation letter in prescribed Form 'b' which is reproduced in Annexure XVIII, Part III. "election Commission of India published another Book Handbook for Candidates in 1994. Relevant portion appears at page 56 which runs as follows:"17. "election Commission of India published another Book Handbook for Candidates in 1994. Relevant portion appears at page 56 which runs as follows:"17. 6 From the form of nomination paper, you will find that if you are a party candidate, you are required to make a declaration to that effect in the nomination paper itself. Now, you may be set up by a recongised party, that is to say, a National party or State party, or you may be set up by a registered unrecognised party, that is to say, by a party for which no symbol has been reserved at all. The order of the Commission lays down clearly that you shall be deemed to be set up by a particular party if, and only if; each of the conditions mentioned below are fulfilled; (a) In the first place, you must have made a declaration to that effect in your nomination paper, that is to say, in your declaration in the nomination paper you shall have to say that you are a candidate set up by such and such party. (b) In the second place, a notice in writing in the form prescribed by the commission (which is commonly known now as Form 'b' Appendix IX, Part III) to the above effect by the party which has set you up as a candidate must be delivered to the Returning Officer of the constituency and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State before 3 p. m. on the last date for withdrawal of candidatures. (c) In the third place, the said notice in Form B must be signed by the President, Secretary or other office bearer of the party who is authorised by the party to send such notices and whose specimen signatures have been communicated by the party in the form prescribed by the Commission which is commonly known as Forms 'a' (Appendix IX, Part II) to the said Returning Officer of the State by 3 p. m. on the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures. 17. 7. If any of these three conditions is not fulfilled strictly in the manner and within the time prescribed then you shall not be deemed to be set up by the party and shall be treated as an independent candidate. 17. 7. If any of these three conditions is not fulfilled strictly in the manner and within the time prescribed then you shall not be deemed to be set up by the party and shall be treated as an independent candidate. Therefore, be very particular about these three conditions otherwise you will be deprived of all the benefits of a reserved symbol, if you are set up by a Recognised National or State party. Or of precedence over independent candidates if you are set up by a registered unrecognised Party. 17. 8. You are well-advised to submit the said Form 'a' and 'b' to the Returning Officer along with your nomination paper itself to avoid any last minute complication. "order 13 of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 reads as under:-"13. When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party.- For the purpose of this Order a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party if, and only if,- (a) the candidate has made a declaration to that effect in his nomination paper; (b) a notice in writing to that effect has, not later than 3 p. m. on the last day of withdrawal of candidatures, been delivered to the Returning Officer of the constituency; (c) the said notice is signed by the President, the Secretary or any other office bearer of the party and the President, Secretary or such other office bearer is authorised by the party to send such notice; and (d) the name and specimen signature of such authorised person are communicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State not later than 3. 00 p. m. on the last date for the withdrawal of candidature. "20a. The difference between a mandatory rule a directory rule is that the formermust be strictly observed but in the case of the latter, substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted. 00 p. m. on the last date for the withdrawal of candidature. "20a. The difference between a mandatory rule a directory rule is that the formermust be strictly observed but in the case of the latter, substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted. Certain broad propositions which can be deduced from several decisions of Courts regarding the rules of construction that should be followed in determining whether a provision of law is directory are as under :"in order to find out the true character of the legislation, the Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question is to subserve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time who have no control over the performance of the duty, such provision should be treated as a directory one. Where however, a provision of law prescribes that a certain act has to be done in a particular manner by a person in order to acquire a right and it is coupled with another provision which confers an immunity on another when such act is not done in that manner, the former has to be regarded as a mandatory one. "in other words, the question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and those are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provisions, but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it one way or the other. No general rule can be laid down for deciding as to whether a particular provision is directory or mandatory. In every case the object of the statute must be looked at. No general rule can be laid down for deciding as to whether a particular provision is directory or mandatory. In every case the object of the statute must be looked at. The purpose of enacting symbol, order and particularly Order 13 is to provide a procedure where a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party. All the four conditions mentioned in the sub-paras. (a), (b), (c) and (d) have to be fulfilled. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly fulfilled the first three conditions and the only condition which he has not admittedly fulfilled is condition (d), i. e. he has not furnished the name and the specimen signature of such authorised person to the Returning Officer before 3 p. m. on the last day for withdrawal of candidature. According to the petitioner since there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature of the authorized person nor were there two candidates claiming to be the official candidate of RSP, the Returning Officer should not have insisted for the compliance of Order 13 (d ). It may be true in the present case, but for deciding as to whether a particular provision is mandatory or not, one has to conceive and keep in mind all possible situations. It has been often seen that political parties at the time of nomination put up more than one individual as its official candidate and later they keep on changing their minds and this leads to a tussle as to who should be the contesting candidate on behalf of that party. Then occasion arises when the aggrieved candidate starts disputing the authority or the authenticity of the authorised person and in that situation, it will be very difficult for the Returning Officer to decide the matter one way or the other unless Order 13 (d) is also complied with. Keeping such an eventuality in mind, it cannot be said that Order 13 (d) can be held to be directory and not mandatory. Moreso when the legislature has used the word 'shall' and has also given emphasis by using the word 'if and only if'. Keeping such an eventuality in mind, it cannot be said that Order 13 (d) can be held to be directory and not mandatory. Moreso when the legislature has used the word 'shall' and has also given emphasis by using the word 'if and only if'. Use of word 'shall' as well as "if and only if" leaves no room for doubt in coming to the conclusion that the legislature intended that Order 13 should be mandatory and should be strictly complied with to maintain the purity of election and to conduct elections in a fair and efficient manner. Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement will lead to specific consequences, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and that specified consequences would not follow. Case of K. Kamarajanadar (supra) relates to Section l17 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the question involved therein was whether the words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission" used in Section 117 are directory and not mandatory in their character. In Veluswami's case (supra), also it has been stated that "it is a sound rule of construction that procedural enactments should be construed liberally and in such a manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. " R. B. Sugar Co. (supra) deals only with the compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was held therein that the absence of the word 'shall' meant substantial compliance was sufficient. All these authorities do not help the petitioner in deciding whether Order 13 (d) is mandatory or directory. In Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1980 SC 303, it has been held that the requirement, that the copy of the election petition should be attended by the petitioner, is mandatory and non-compliance of that requirement was fatal and the election petition was dismissed on that account only. In Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027, it has been held that the absence of the words "true copy" on the copy does not entitle dismissal of the election petition as there was sufficient compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027, it has been held that the absence of the words "true copy" on the copy does not entitle dismissal of the election petition as there was sufficient compliance of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The copy was an exact copy of the election petition and was duly signed by the petitioner or his advocate. Also in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1974 SC 1185, it has been held that non-compliance of Section 81 (3) would entail dismissal of the election petition. In K. Kamaraja Nadar (supra) it was held that the provisions regarding the mode of depositing the amount of security are directory and substantial compliance is sufficient but the requirements of Section 81 (3) are mandatory and the election petition must be dismissed if Section 81 (3) is not complied with. As also in Rajendra Singh's case (supra) it has been held that non-compliance of Section 81 (3) which is mandatory is fatal and the petition ought to be dismissed. In Union of India v. Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328 : (1977 Lab IC 1857) it has been observed:"105. Viscount Simon L. C. in the case of Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. , 1940 AC 1014 observed- "if the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. " In Abhimanyudu Dake v. Vivekananda Karupati, AIR 1993 SC 1944 : (1993 AIR SCW 2189) it was held that since the certificate issued by the political party declaring the incumbent as an official candidate was not submitted to the Returning Officer within time, he was rightly treated as an independent candidate. ( 21 ) HENCE issues Nos. 1 and 2 are decided against the petitioner and it is held that Rule 13 (d) of the Election symbols is mandatory and the order passed by the Returning Officer dated 27-10-94 is perfectly valid. ( 22 ) ). Issue No. 3"3. Has the result of the Election of Respondent No. 2 been materially affected by the ruling of Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94. " ( 23 ) ). ( 22 ) ). Issue No. 3"3. Has the result of the Election of Respondent No. 2 been materially affected by the ruling of Respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-94. " ( 23 ) ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been nursing the constituency since October, 1993 and had been projecting himself as RSP candidate for over a year to his supporters and voters in the said constituency. Majority of the population in the constituency are illiterate and, therefore, could identify their chosen candidates only by the symbols which was the 'rising Sun'. Non-allotment of the party symbol was a great drawback for the petitioner and created grave confusion in the minds of his voters when they did not find the symbol of Rising Sun on the ballot paper. Many voters and supporters were annoyed with the petitioner for letting them down and for contesting as an independent candidate. Since the petitioner was not treated as a candidate of the RSP it had materially affected the result of the election so far as it concerned the returned candidate. ( 24 ) RELEVANT portion of the Section 100 (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads as under :-"100. Grounds for Declaring Election to be Void- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if (the High Court) is of opinion- (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) to (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, (the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, (the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void ). " ( 25 ) AS to what is the meaning of the words "the result of the election has been materially affected" has been discussed elaborately by the Supreme Court in its earliest judgment in Vashist Narain v. Dev Chandra wherein it was observed-"the words "the result of the election has been materially affected" indicate that the result should not be judged by the mere increase or decrease in the total number of votes secured by the returned candidate but by proof of the fact that the wasted votes would have been distributed in such a manner between the contesting candidates as would have brought about the defeat of the returned candidate. It cannot be held that the mere fact that the wasted votes are greater than the margin of votes between the returned candidate and the candidates securing the next highest number of votes must lead to the necessary inference that the result of the election has been materially affected. That is a matter which has to be proved and the onus of proving it lies upon the petitioner. Should the petitioner fail to adduce satisfactory evidence to enable the Court to find in his favour on this point, the inevitable result would be that the Tribunal would not interfere in his favour and would allow the election to stand. " ( 26 ) THESE words indicate that the result should not be judged by the mere increase or decrease in the total number of votes secured by the returned candidate but by proof of the fact that the wasted votes would have been distributed in such a manner between the contesting candidates as would have brought about the defeat of the returned candidate. The next question that arises is whether the burden of proving it lies upon the petitioner who objects to the validity of the election. There is preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the view that the burden lies upon the objector. The next question that arises is whether the burden of proving it lies upon the petitioner who objects to the validity of the election. There is preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the view that the burden lies upon the objector. ( 27 ) THE casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of factors and it is not possible for any one to predicate how many or which proportion of the votes will go to one or the other candidates. While it must be recognised that a petitioner in such a case is confronted with a difficult situation yet it is not possible to relieve him of the duty imposed upon him by Section 100 (1) (d) and hold without evidence that the duty has been discharged. Should the petitioner fail to adduce satisfactory evidence on this point to enable the Court to decide in his favour, the inevitable result would be that the Court would not interfere in his favour and would allow the election to stand. In Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram, AIR 1984 SC 146 : (1984 All LJ 114) their Lordships observed that the question whether the result of the election could be said to have been materially affected depends upon the facts, circumstances and reasonable probabilities of the case. It was again observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. N. Balakrishna v. Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 at page 1225-"58. In our opinion the matter cannot be considered on possibility. Vashist Narain's case insists on proof. If the margin of voteswere small something might be made of the points mentioned by Mr. Jethamalani. But the margin is large and the number of votes earned by the remaining candidates also sufficiently huge. There is no room, therefore, for a reasonable judicial guess. The law requires proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature. In Vashist's case 1955 (1) SCR 509 : AIR 1954 SC 513 : (1954 All LJ 525) and in Inayatullah v. Diwanchand Mahajan, (1958) 15 Ele LR 219 : (AIR 1959 MP 58) at pp. 235-236 (MP) the provision was held to prescribe an impossible burden. The law has however remained as before. We are bound by the rulings of this Court and must say that the burden has not been successfully discharged. . . . . . 235-236 (MP) the provision was held to prescribe an impossible burden. The law has however remained as before. We are bound by the rulings of this Court and must say that the burden has not been successfully discharged. . . . . . . "in Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh, AIR 1988 SC 637, their Lordships have referred to Vashist Narain Sharma's case as also the case of Chhedi Ram (supra) and have expressed their agreement on the views taken in these decisions and have further observed that "the burden to prove this material effect is difficult and many times it is almost impossible to produce the requisite proof. But the difficulty in proving this fact does not alter the position of law. The legislative intent is clear that unless the burden, howsoever difficult it may be, is discharged, the election cannot be declared void. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasist Narain Sharma's case and Paokai Haokip's case observed that the difficulty of proving the material effect could be resolved by the Legislature and not by the Court's. Since then the Act has been amended several times, but the Parliament has not altered the burden of proof placed on the petitioner under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions still hold the field. It is not permissible in law to avoid the election of the returned candidate on speculations or conjectures relating to the manner in which the wasted votes would have been distributed amongst the remaining validly nominated candidates. The Supreme Court in Lata Devi v. Haru Rajwar, AIR 1990 SC 19 observed -"the party who wishes to get an election declared void has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the result of the poll had in fact been materially affected by the violation of R. 10 (5) of the Rules. For doing this, it has to be demonstrated that the votes would have been diverted in such a way that the returned candidate would have been successful. In the instant case there was no evidence to demonstrate the returned candidate having derived any benefit from the change of symbol of the election petitioner. For doing this, it has to be demonstrated that the votes would have been diverted in such a way that the returned candidate would have been successful. In the instant case there was no evidence to demonstrate the returned candidate having derived any benefit from the change of symbol of the election petitioner. Contesting candidate to whom the "bow and arrow" symbol was later allotted, was not the successful candidate, the election petitioner was required to show that such number of votes had gone in favour of the petitioner, simply because of the change of symbol as would, without that number of votes, make the successful candidate unsuccessful. The petitioner, besides making bare statement, had not produced any other satisfactory evidence in support of such a proposition. Therefore it cannot be said that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected. " ( 28 ) IN this view of the matter, if we consider the evidence adduced by the petitioner in this case, (already referred earlier) the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that the result of the election has been materially affected so far as it concerns the returned candidate. The witnesses produced by him were his workers and supporters and they including the petitioner have not stated that if the petitioner had been allotted the symbol of RSP, respondent No. 2 would not have won. The petitioner has to lead satisfactory and reliable evidence. We cannot act on surmises and conjectures in election matters. The basic principle of democracy is that the intention of the electorates have to be respected and Courts should be slow in disturbing the judgment of the electorate. In the present case, since the margin was only 47 votes, the petitioner could have produced reliable, unimpeachable and credible evidence to show that Respondent No. 2 would not have won the election if the petitioner had been allotted the symbol of the Rising Sun. But the petitioner has miserably failed. Therefore, this issue is also decided against the petitioner. ( 29 ) THUS, there is no force in the election petition, the same is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .