JUDGMENT - M.S. RANE, J. :--The Election Petition herein filed under the Representation of Peoples Act of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) calls in question the election of Nivrutti alias Bapusaheb Thite - the 1st respondent herein to the 43 - Baramati Parliamentary Constituency, District Pune, held on 26th May, 1994 wherein the 1st respondent was declared as a returned candidate. The Principal ground upon which the said election of the 1st respondent is challenged is the improper rejection of the Nomination paper of Shri Shinde Waman Malhari one of the candidates who has filed his nomination for the said election which according to the petitioner has been done by the 2nd respondent illegally and improperly. 2. Few relevant facts in the background : Bye-election of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency was announced by the Election Commission in the last week of April-1994. The few relevant dates are mentioned herein - below- (i) Issue of Notification - 26th April, 1994. (ii) Last date for Nomination - 3rd May, 1996. (iii) Scrutiny of Nomination papers - 4th May, 1994. (iv) Last date of withdrawal - 6th May, 1994. (v) Date of Poll : 26th May, 1994. (vi) Date of declaration of result or date of counting : 28th May, 1994. 3. The petitioner submitted his Nomination on the date as specified hereinabove on compliance of the necessary formalities required in that behalf. His Nomination was accepted. He is the voter from Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency in Pune City and he submitted the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll pertaining to his registration as a voter alongwith his Nomination form. His Nomination papers came to be accepted by the respondent No. 2 who was the Returning Officer. However, he withdraw his Nomination before the prescribed date and therefore he did not remain in the contest. 4. 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency falls in the District of Pune. There are 3 Constituencies of the said District Pune. Other two are, Khed Parliamentary Constituency and Pune City Constituency. The petitioner was the registered voter in the Pune City Parliamentary Constituency and not of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. He, however, furnished the certified copy of the extract of electoral roll alongwith his Nomination form. 5. There are 3 Constituencies of the said District Pune. Other two are, Khed Parliamentary Constituency and Pune City Constituency. The petitioner was the registered voter in the Pune City Parliamentary Constituency and not of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. He, however, furnished the certified copy of the extract of electoral roll alongwith his Nomination form. 5. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the rejection of Nomination of one of the candidates Shri Shinde Waman Malhari, whose Nomination paper was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 4th May, 1994 at the time of scrutiny. Said Shinde Waman Malhari was the voter registered in 41-Khed Parliamentary Constituency and was not thus a voter of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. It is noticed that said Shinde Waman Malhari submitted his Nomination which must have been on the specified date before the Returning Officer - the 2nd respondent herein. It is undisputed position that while submitting his Nomination said Shinde did not submit the extract of electoral roll pertaining to his registration as a elector alongwith the Nomination Form. 6. The case of the petitioner proceeds that on 4th May, 1994 when the Nomination papers were to be scrutinised in the office of the 2nd respondent he remained present in the said office. He was late by about an hour. His name was pronounced by the 2nd respondent even before he reached the Office of the second respondent and the same came to be accepted. 7. The petitioner further proceeds to State that the 2nd respondent also announced the name of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari. But said Shinde Waman Malhari was not present. The Returning Officer - 2nd respondent rejected the Nomination of the said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari under the provisions of section 33(5) of the said Act, because of the failure of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari to comply with the said provisions. The 2nd respondent in the Written Statement has annexed copy of his order rejecting the nomination paper of said Shinde assigning reason for rejection and the relevant portion thereof reads as under : "Shri Shinde Waman Malhari did not present the required certified copy of the relevant electoral roll. Therefore, his Nomination is required to be rejected and it is rejected accordingly." 8. It is to be stated that it is the said order of rejection that is impugned in this petition. 9. Therefore, his Nomination is required to be rejected and it is rejected accordingly." 8. It is to be stated that it is the said order of rejection that is impugned in this petition. 9. It will be noticed that the Nomination papers of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari has been rejected, as stated earlier, for non-compliance of said provisions of section 33(5) of the said Act by not furnishing certified copy of the relevant electoral roll. 10. It is a contention of the petitioner that he brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent on the same day itself that the rejection of the Nomination papers of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was improper and illegal. It is to be stated that in the petition, the petitioner has not stated the manner in which he supposed to have brought the said fact to the notice of the 2nd respondent. But before the Court in his evidence he says that he made an oral request in that behalf. The requisite comments will be made thereupon at an appropriate stage. 11. The petitioner has expressed his resentment and dis-approval to the rejection of the Nomination papers of Shri Shinde Waman Malhari by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was also the Collector of District Pune and with him the electoral rolls of all the 3 Parliamentary Constituencies of Pune District including the Parliamentary constituency where said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was registered and therefore the 2nd respondent ought to have taken troubles to refer to the relevant electoral roll where the said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was registered and accepted the Nomination of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was hyper technical in rejecting the Nomination of said Shri Shinde and therefore the action of rejection is illegal and improper. 12. It is in these circumstances that the election of the 1st respondent - the returned candidate from 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency, District Pune in Maharashtra is sought to be challenged. 13. The 1st respondent in his Written Statement has questioned the legality as also the proprietary of filing the petition. The various contentions have been taken in that behalf. In as much as, it is asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. 13. The 1st respondent in his Written Statement has questioned the legality as also the proprietary of filing the petition. The various contentions have been taken in that behalf. In as much as, it is asserted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. All the necessary parties who were contesting candidates have not been made party respondents in this petition. The respondent No. 2 has been wrongly joined as party respondent in this petition and so on. 14. With regard to the main contention of rejection of nomination of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari, it is asserted by and on behalf of the 1st respondent that the provisions as contained in section 33 of the said Act in particular sub-clause (5) thereof are of a mandatory nature and Statute itself so also the rules made thereunder lay down and prescribe the procedure and the manner in which the Nomination papers are to be filed. In that the Nomination papers are to be submitted in a form prescribed under the rules accompanied by the various documents which include the extract of the electoral roll of the candidate submitting the Nomination. It is further stated that admittedly said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was not a registered voter of 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency and he was a voter registered in different Parliamentary Constituency. The law stipulates that in such case the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll has to be necessarily accompanied alongwith the Nomination paper as provided in (5) of section 33 of the said Act. Not only that, said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari did not submit the certified copy of the extract of the electoral roll alongwith the Nomination paper but also on the date of scrutiny said Shinde Waman Malhari infact did not remain present before the 2nd respondent and has not cared to challenge rejection of his nomination. 15. As far as 2nd respondent is concerned, he has filed the Written Statement highlighting the relevant provisions of the said Act in particular sub-clause (5) of section 33 of the said Act which mandates the submission of the extract of electoral roll by the candidate submitting the Nomination. 15. As far as 2nd respondent is concerned, he has filed the Written Statement highlighting the relevant provisions of the said Act in particular sub-clause (5) of section 33 of the said Act which mandates the submission of the extract of electoral roll by the candidate submitting the Nomination. Said Shinde Waman Malhari alongwith his Nomination did not submit the extract of the electoral roll nor did he remain present on the day of scrutiny or produce the extract of the electoral roll which amounted to non-compliance of the statutory - mandatory requirements. The 2nd respondent has justified the rejection of the Nomination of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari. 16. On the basis of pleading on 6th September, 1995, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether petition is liable to be dismissed as being not in confirmity with the Rules. 2. Whether the petitioner has locus to file the petition. 3. Whether petition is not maintainable as it suffers from non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 is a necessary or proper party to the petition? 5. Whether the nomination paper of Shinde Waman Malhari was wrongly or improperly rejected by respondent No. 2 as alleged in the petition. 6. What relief. 17. It will be noticed from the above issues that Issue No. 5 is a crucial and decisive issue in the matter. Rest of the issues in particular Issue Nos. 1 to 4 are so to say legal or technical issues. This Court, therefore, thinks it appropriate to thrash out the said Issue No. 5 which is a main issue. The said Issue No. 5 reads as under : Whether the Nomination paper of Shinde Waman Malhari was wrongly or improperly rejected by respondent No. 2 as alleged in the petition. 18. The findings of the Court on the said issues are in the negative for the reasons as will be indicated hereinbelow. 19. Since the petitioner fails in the said main issue, it is through unnecessary to deal with and dilate over the rest of the issues. 20. The petitioner has examined himself and one more witness Shri Subbash Marhar Godse. No documentary evidence has been produced by and on behalf of the petitioner. 21. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, no evidence has been adduced on his behalf. So is the position as far as 2nd respondent is concerned. 20. The petitioner has examined himself and one more witness Shri Subbash Marhar Godse. No documentary evidence has been produced by and on behalf of the petitioner. 21. As far as the 1st respondent is concerned, no evidence has been adduced on his behalf. So is the position as far as 2nd respondent is concerned. It needs to be stated that considering the controversy in the matter herein as submitted hereinabove, the same falls in the narrow compass i.e. whether or not the provisions as contained in sub-clause (5) of section 33 of the said Act which requires the candidate filing the Nomination paper to submit the extract, of the electoral roll in respect of the registration of his name as a voter is mandatory or not. It will be useful to advert to the relevant legal provisions as contained in the said Act. Part V of Chapter 1 containing sections 30 to 39 of the said Act laid down and provide for conduct of elections. Such as, appointment of dates for nominations, etc., public notice of election, submissions of nomination form, time limit for such submission, scrutiny of nominations, withdrawal of nominations and the specific dates, etc. 22. Section 33 provides for presentation of Nomination papers and requirements for valid Nomination forms, to which we are mainly concerned. The relevant part of the said section provides as under : "(1) ........ (2) ............ (3) ............ (4) ............ (5) Where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency 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". 23. There are also rules known as Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the provisions of the said Act and Rule No. 4 appearing in Part II of the said Act which provides: "4. 23. There are also rules known as Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the provisions of the said Act and Rule No. 4 appearing in Part II of the said Act which provides: "4. Nomination Paper : Every Nomination paper presented under sub-section (1) of section 33 shall be completed in such one of the Forms 2-A to 2-E as may be appropriate; Provided that a failure to complete or defect in completing, the declaration as to symbols in nomination paper in Form 2-A or Form 2-B shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 36." 24. Then there are forms prescribed for the nomination papers and Forms 2-A and 3-A relate to the Parliamentary Constituency. The various particulars/requirements to be furnished by a person filing his nomination or contesting the election are as under : the personal details - name, age, address, the name of the political party having affiliation, electoral number of the candidate, the name of proposer and the electoral number of the proposer. 25. It will be noticed that sub-clause (5) of section 33 reproduced hereinabove clearly provides that if the candidate is a voter of different constituency, copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or the relevant extract or certified copy of the relevant entries of such roll has to be submitted. The expression appearing therein is "shall". The candidate shall either furnish the relevant electoral roll at the time when he submits his Nomination or he is given further opportunity to do so at the time of scrutiny. It therefore clearly emerges that by reading sub-clause (5) of section 33 it leaves no manner of any doubt whatsoever that the said provisions being of a mandatory nature and admits no exception. The compliance thereof has to be there by a candidate submitting his Nomination, if he happens to be the elector registered in a Constituency other than the Constituency in respect of which election is sought to be conducted. 26. Coming to the present case, there is no dispute that said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was not a elector registered in 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. He was thus elector registered in different Parliamentary Constituency. 26. Coming to the present case, there is no dispute that said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was not a elector registered in 43-Baramati Parliamentary Constituency. He was thus elector registered in different Parliamentary Constituency. Therefore, it was necessary nay mandatory upon said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari to submit the relevant extract of the electoral roll in respect of his registration as voter either alongwith his Nomination or he should have done so on the day of scrutiny. Admittedly, as noticed earlier, said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari has not done. Therefore the non-compliance of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari of said mandatory provision stands amply born out and in such situation the 2nd respondent was perfectly right and justify in rejecting his Nomination for failure to comply with the statutory provisions. 27. The petitioner in this petition is trying to make two points. Firstly, he contends that when the Nomination paper of said Shri Shinde was rejected by the 2nd respondent, he made oral request to the 2nd respondent to accept nomination of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari and not to reject the name by pointing out that all the electoral rolls were available for perusal of the 2nd respondent and he should verify and ascertained from the same. But his request was not acceded to. It needs however to be mentioned that in the petition there is no reference made even remotedly that the petitioner had ever made such a request. It was first time sought to be put-forth from the witness box. Naturally the petitioner was confronted with such an important omission in the petition and he has to admit that he had not so stated and when further questioned he seeks to explain that he had forgotten to do so. 28. The petitioner himself is an advocate and it was pointed out during the course of the argument that he has contested the elections in the past. If at all he had made such a request, it was but expected that he could have so made a mention of such an important fact in the petition itself. Obviously that has not been done. Furthermore, if such an important aspect he has made a request to the Returning Officer which according to the petitioner himself was a very serious one, then he should have so done in writing. Obviously that has not been done. Furthermore, if such an important aspect he has made a request to the Returning Officer which according to the petitioner himself was a very serious one, then he should have so done in writing. No explanation is offered as to why he did not do so. It is to be noted herein whether the petitioner made such a request or not is not going to make any difference as such in view of mandatory statutory requirements as noted earlier. But this aspect is highlighted to bring out the conduct of the petitioner. The witness examined by and on behalf of the petitioner who is also a practising advocate has tried to support the petitioner that petitioner made oral request as above to the Returning Officer. However as indicated hereinafter that will not carry the matter further. 29. The second contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was over technical or to be in his own word hyper technical in dealing with or processing with nomination of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari. According to the petitioner when the Returning Officer had available with him the requisite data namely the electoral rolls of all the 3 Constituencies of Pune District, he could have taken troubles to find out whether said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari is a duly registered elector or not. 30. The position of law on this aspect is no more res integra. The election proceedings are of a different and a special type of proceedings and statute namely the said Act and the Rules made thereunder make very exclusive and elaborate provisions with regard to not only of the conduct of the election but even of the conduct of legal proceedings. There are elaborate rules made in that behalf. The manner of presenting the petition, its contents, verification, the accompaniments and documents, all have to be very very scrupulously and meticulously observed and even a slightest technical fault in compliance with such formalities is considered as a grave serious lacuna fatal to the maintainability of the petition. So is the position with regard to the conduct of the election. 31. There are various stages that go through during the conduct of the election, publication of notification by the election authorities, submission of Nomination, date of scrutiny and so on. So is the position with regard to the conduct of the election. 31. There are various stages that go through during the conduct of the election, publication of notification by the election authorities, submission of Nomination, date of scrutiny and so on. As noticed earlier the manner in which the Nomination Papers are to be submitted also form the part of statutory provisions and nothing is left for guess or common sense. 32. Section 33 in particular sub-clause (5) as pointed out hereinabove is of a mandatory nature and there are judicial decisions on the point wherein the facts and circumstances were the same as obtained in the matter herein. The Apex Court has held that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (5) of section 33 is a fatal lacuna in the procedure which will invite only the rejection of the Nomination papers. It will be unnecessary to refer to such various decisions on this point. But it will suffice, if I mention the latest one wherein the Apex Court has luminously set out the legal position in the facts and situation as obtained identical in the matter herein. The case in question is (Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit)1, reported in A.I.R. 1988, S.C. page 1796. It is noticed that even in the said case a candidate who has filed the nomination was not a registered voter in the constituency in respect of which election was to be held. He was elector of different constituency. He did not submit the relevant extract of electoral roll alongwith the nomination papers nor did he do so on the date of scrutiny. So is the case in the matter herein. The arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the rejection almost as done by the petitioner herein that the relevant date was available before the Returning Officer and he should not have been technical or hyper technical in rejection. It was urged that the Returning Officer should have with little pains ascertained the fact of concerned candidate being elector in a particular constituency so as to test his eligibility for being a candidate. Repelling the said argument, the Apex Court observed and laid down in paras No. 5, 6 and 7. "5. It was urged that the Returning Officer should have with little pains ascertained the fact of concerned candidate being elector in a particular constituency so as to test his eligibility for being a candidate. Repelling the said argument, the Apex Court observed and laid down in paras No. 5, 6 and 7. "5. The above provision requires a candidate who is an elector of a different constituency, to file a copy of the electoral roll of constituency or a relevant part of that roll or a certified copy of the relevant entries along with his nomination paper. These documents are necessary to show that the candidate is an elector of a different constituency, and he is eligible to contest the election. If a candidate is unable to comply with these requirements at the time of filing the nomination paper he is afforded another opportunity to prove his eligibility by producing a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency or the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries of the roll before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. The legislature provides two opportunities to such a candidate for proving his eligibility to contest the election, one at the stage of filing the nomination paper and the other at the stage of scrutiny. If the candidate fails to avail either of the two opportunities his nomination paper is liable to be rejected. Section 16 of the Act provides that on the date of scrutiny of nomination paper the returning officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and he may either on objection or on his own action, after holding such summary inquiry, if any, reject any nomination on the grounds specified in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of sub-section (2). Section 36(a)(b) provides for the rejection of the nomination paper on the candidates failure to comply with any of the provisions of section 33 or section 36(a) of the Act. Section 33(5) read with section 36(2)(b) makes it apparent that if a candidate who is an elector of different constituency fails is prove his eligibility in the manner prescribed by section 33(5) of the Act. These provisions are plain which admit of no other interpretation. Section 33(5) read with section 36(2)(b) makes it apparent that if a candidate who is an elector of different constituency fails is prove his eligibility in the manner prescribed by section 33(5) of the Act. These provisions are plain which admit of no other interpretation. Non-compliance with section 33(5) is fatal to the nomination and no other mode is prescribed by the Act for proving the eligibility of the candidate. Section 33(5) prescribes a particular mode to prove eligibility of a candidate to contest election and section 36(2)(b) provides penal consequences. Therefore, section 33(5) is mandatory in nature. There is no dispute that Umrao Ben failed to comply with the requirement of section 33(5) of the Act as she had either filed a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency or the relevant part thereof, or the certified copy of the relevant entries along with her nomination paper. Nor she had produced any of the three documents before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. In the circumstances the returning officer rightly rejected Umrao Bens nomination paper. 6. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Counsel them urged that section 33(5) of the Act was directory and it was open to a candidate to prove his eligibility by any other mode. He urged that Umrao Bens request to the returning officer to verify her entry from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency which was in his custody (as he was the returning officer of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency also) was ignored and he refused to grant her time to produce the necessary documents. In the election petition there was no pleading that Umrao Ben had made any such request or that the returning officer had refused to grant her time. The High Court has on appreciation of evidence held that no request for time was made by Smt. Umrao Ben and no request for verifying the entry relating to her from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency was made. But even assuming that the returning officer had refused to verify the relevant entries relating to Umrao Ben from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency, he had acted in accordance with law. No exception could be taken to his conduct. Section 33(5) of the Act lays down a mandatory requirement for a valid nomination. But even assuming that the returning officer had refused to verify the relevant entries relating to Umrao Ben from the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency, he had acted in accordance with law. No exception could be taken to his conduct. Section 33(5) of the Act lays down a mandatory requirement for a valid nomination. The purpose of section 33(5) of the Act is to satisfy the returning officer that the candidate is eligible to contest the election and if he fails to satisfy the returning officer in the manner prescribed by section 33(5) of the Act, the penalty and the consequences which are specified in section 36(2)(b) must follow. Section 33(5) is not directory instead it is mandatory in nature. An elector of a different constituency is under a mandatory duty to prove his eligibility in the manner prescribed by section 33(5) of the Act and if he fails to do that, he must suffer the consequences contemplated by section 36(2)(b) of the Act. It is not open to a candidate who fails to comply with section 33(5) of the Act to put the blame on the returning officer for the rejection of his nomination paper. The returning officer is under no legal obligation to make amends for the omission of a candidate, especially when the omission relates to a mandatory requirement. Apart from this legal aspect, even on facts, the Returning Officer, in his testimony before the High Court, had stated that the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency was not with him at the time he had taken up the scrutiny of nomination paper of Jodhpur City Constituency. The law does not enjoin the returning officer to send for the electoral roll from his office to verify the eligibility of a candidate. The law casts a duty on the candidate to satisfy the returning officer by following one of the three modes prescribed in section 33(5) of the Act and if he fails to do that the returning officer is bound to reject the nomination paper, he has no option in the matter. The law does not require the returning officer to send for the electoral roll of a different constituency for the purpose of verifying the eligibility of a candidate. 7. The law does not require the returning officer to send for the electoral roll of a different constituency for the purpose of verifying the eligibility of a candidate. 7. In (Sri Baru Ram v. Shrimati Prasanni)2, 1959 S.C.R. 1403 : A.I.R. 1959, S.C. 93, this Court interpreted section 33(5) and section 36(2)(b) and observed as under (at p.100 of A.I.R.): "Section 33(5) requires the candidate to supply the prescribed copy and section 36(2)(b) provides that on his failure to comply with the said requirement his nomination paper is liable to be rejected. In other words, this is a case where the statute requires the candidates to produce the prescribed evidence and provides a penalty for his failure to do so. In such a case it is difficult to appreciate the relevance or validity of the argument that the requirement of section 33(5) is not mandatory but is directory, because the statute itself has made it clear that the failure to comply with the said requirement leads to the rejection of the nomination paper. Whenever the statute requires a particular Act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence it would be difficult to accept the argument that the failure to comply with the said requirement should lead to any other consequence." 33. In my view, the Supreme Court has very luminously discussed the legal provisions in particular the mandatory nature of section 33(5) of the said Act leaving no manner of doubt whatsoever for any view or interpretation. The position of the law as discussed and set out in the above paras is so clear and eloquent needing no further comments. 34. Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in its earlier decision in the case of (Avadh Raj Singh v. Kishore Gupta)3, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. page 1148. Therefore, in my view, the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in full force would apply to the facts and circumstances as obtained in the matter herein. To repeat in the instant case the said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was a elector registered in different Constituency other than the Constituency in which the election was to be held. Therefore, in my view, the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in full force would apply to the facts and circumstances as obtained in the matter herein. To repeat in the instant case the said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari was a elector registered in different Constituency other than the Constituency in which the election was to be held. It is also undisputed position that he did not submit the extract of the electoral roll pertaining to his registration either at the time of submitting his nomination or at later stage. The record shows that he has also thought it unnecessary to remain present on the day of scrutiny. He has also not made any grievance of whatsoever nature against the decision of the 2nd respondent. 35. Therefore, in my view, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances as obtained in the matter herein and as adverted to hereinabove, the 2nd respondent was perfectly right within his statutory right to reject the nomination paper of said Shri Shinde Waman Malhari. 36. In the circumstances, I do not find any merits in this petition and the same stands dismissed. As far as cost is concerned, as the petitioner fails, the respondents will be justified in insisting for the same and in fact the Counsel for the 1st respondent so insisted. However, the petitioner stated that he should not be saddled with the costs as he has taken up the issue in public interest. In the circumstances, as far as this petition is concerned, each party shall bear its own costs. 37. Hence the following order. (i) Election petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) Office is directed to intimate the decision of this Court to the concerned Authority of the election agency as required under the rules. Petition dismissed.