R. D. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these Election Petitions have been filed calling in question the validity of the election of Sri Bhadra Singh, who has been declared elected as member of Lok Sabha from 26th Sultanpur Parliamentary Constituency in 1999 General Election held for constituting 13 Lok Sabha. The petitioner, Sri Krishna Mohan Sharma has filed the Election Petition under S. 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the petitioner Sri Satya Dev Singh has filed the Election Petition under Ss. 80, 80a, 81, 84, 86, 98, 99, 100, 100 (1) (c) (d) (iv) of the Representation of People Act 1951, read with Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) SINCE the issues raised are common, both these Election Petitions have been clubbed together for disposal. The parties have also agreed for combined hearing of the petitions. ( 3 ) THE facts pleaded by the petitioners are as follows :sri Satya Dev Singh who has filed Election Petition No. 9 of 1999, was one of the contestants for the Election to be held on 3/10/1999 for 26th Sultanpur Parliamentary Constituency in which respondent, Sri Jai Bhadra Singh was declared elected. According to the petitioner the result of Election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, having been materially affected on account of illegal rejection of the Nomination Paper of the petitioner. The Election time table relating to Election for the said Parliamentary Constituency was as follows :i. Issue of Notification by President-7th Sept. 1999ii. Last date for filing of the nomination-14th Sept. 1999iii. Scrutiny of nominations-15th Sept. 1999iv. Last date for withdrawal of candidature-17th Sept. 1999v. Date of Polling-3rd Oct. 1999vi. Counting date-6th Oct. 1999vii. Date of declaration of result of election.-7th Oct. 1999 ( 4 ) IN all 17 persons intending to become candidate filed their nominations for 26th Sultanpur Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner was set up to contest the general election by Bhartiya Janta Party and he filed his nomination paper on September 10, 1999 at about 12. 45 hours. The petitioner filed four sets of nomination papers as required under the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the R. P. Act. The petitioner having been set up to contest the election by a recognised political party, i. e. Bhartiya Janta Party, a National Party, so he had to mention this fact in his nomination paper. The petitioner filed four sets of nomination papers as required under the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the R. P. Act. The petitioner having been set up to contest the election by a recognised political party, i. e. Bhartiya Janta Party, a National Party, so he had to mention this fact in his nomination paper. According to the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, hereinafter referred to as Symbols Order, the candidate set up by a political party is required to make a declaration to the effect that he has been authorised to use the reserved symbol of the recognised National Party. In compliance of the said provision the petitioner made a declaration to the effect that he had been authorised by the Bhartiya Janta Party to contest the Election. The said declaration was given to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State before 3. 00 P. M. of the last date of nomination, i. e. , September 14, 1999. However, inadvertently, the said notice could not be given to the Returning Officer of Sultanpur Parliamentary Constipuency before 3. 00 P. M. on 14-9-1999 but the same was delivered at 5. 20 P. M. On the date of scrutiny of no-mination papers certain objections were raised, the copy of the said objections was supplied to the petitioner. However, arguments were heard and the nomination of the petitioner was rejected. A list of candidates set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party was furnished to the Chief Electoral Officer, U. P. 7/09/1999 and again by Dr. Rama Pati Ram Tripathi, State General Secretary, Bhartiya Janta Party on 14/09/1999 before 3. 00 P. M. that since the list of candidates of U. P. , set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party in different Parlimentary Constituency, showing the name of petitioner for 26th Sultanpur Constituency, was submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer before the stipulated time and the Chief Electoral Officer had communicated the said fact to all the concerned Returning Officer, the nomination paper of the petitioner could not have been rejected. ( 5 ) IT has also been pleaded that the Hand-book issued by the Election Commission of India to the candidates does not contain the notification dated 20/05/1999 and as such, the petitioner was misled by incomplete hand-book supplied to him and on account of it he could not submit the notice in writing as required under sub-para (b) of para 13 of the Election Symbols Order to the Returning Officer in time. ( 6 ) SRI Krishna Mohan Sharma, who is an elector has filed the election Petition No. 6 of 1999. Sri Krishna Mohan Sharma has pleaded the same facts which have been pleaded by Sri Satya Dev Singh. Apart from the facts pleaded by Sri Satya Dev Singh, Sri Krishna Mohan Sharma has pleaded that the provisions relating to the conduct of Elections have been enumerated in Part XV of the Constitution of India from Articles 324 to 329. Article 324 lays down that the superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of election to Parliament shall be vested in the Election Commission. The procedure and manner for the exercise of powers of superintendence, direction and control of elections by the Election Commission has not been laid down under Article 324. Article 327 clearly provides that the Parliament may, from time to time, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections to either House of Parliamentary. Entry 72 of list I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution also authorises the Parliament to enact law relating to elections to Parliament. The Election Commission can not exercise any power under the term "direction". "control" and "superintendence" as enumerated under Article 324 of the Constitution independently without taking recoruse of law made by Parlia- ment. the Election Commission has not been vested with any independent power to make any Law, Rule or Order and, therefore, no Legislative power can be exercised by the Election Commission. The Election Commission has made the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. In the preamble of the Symbols Order, it is mentioned that the same is being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with S. 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In the preamble of the Symbols Order, it is mentioned that the same is being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with S. 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). That rule 5 of the Rules prescribes that the Election Commission may, by Notification in the Gazetted and the official Gazette of each State, specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates at elections in Parliament or Assembly constituencies and the restriction to which their choice shall be subject. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that the list of contesting candidates shall be prepared under S. 38 (1) of the Act in form 7-A and form 7-B and shall be prepared in such a manner as the Election Commission may direct. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 further provides that the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of Symbols, expressede by the contesting candidates in their Nomination Papers and the Symbols will be allotted in accordance with the direction issued by the Election Commission and in accordance with the General Rules or special directions issued by the Election Commission. ( 7 ) THAT Rules 5 or Rule 10 of the Rules does not authorise the Election Commission to make any rule or issue any guideline or direction or lay down any law contrary to the provisions of the R. P. Act or conduct of Election Rules or to impose any restriction upon the candidate due to which he may not able to file nomination paper in accordance with the provisions of the R. P. Act. It has further been pleaded that the Election Commission has no legislative power and, therefore, he could not have issued the election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Even otherwise Para 13 of the Symbols Order is illegal, unconstitutional and void as the same is irrational, illogical and unreasonable. The nomination paper of Sri Satya Dev Singh has wrongly been rejected taking recourse to Para 13 of the Symbols Order. Even otherwise Para 13 of the Symbols Order is illegal, unconstitutional and void as the same is irrational, illogical and unreasonable. The nomination paper of Sri Satya Dev Singh has wrongly been rejected taking recourse to Para 13 of the Symbols Order. ( 8 ) THE respondent has filed application8 in each of the Election petitions under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein for dismissal of the Election Petitions on the common pleadings that the petitions do not disclose any ground as specified in Sub-sec. (1) of S. 100 of the R. P. Act. In others words, these petitions do not disclose any cause of action or issues and further the pleadings are irrelevant, frivolous and unnecessary. The petitioners have abused the process of law or Court by filing these baseless petitions without disclosing any cause of action. The competence of Election Commission to issue the Symbols Order or to notify or amend the same under Article 324 read with S. 29-A of the R. P. Act cannot be a ground to set aside the Election under S. 100 of the R. P. Act. The challenge to the vires of the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 through Election Petition is misconceived and irrelevant. The Election Petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 4221 (MB) of 1999; Satya Dev Singh v. Chief Electoral Officer, U. P. and others (filed by petitioner of Election Petition No. 9 of 1999) in which it has been held by this court that filing of Form A and B before the Returning Officer is statutory obligation and non-filing of the same is a defect of substantial character which is not curable. ( 9 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H. S. Jain and Sri I. B. Singh and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri D. P. Singh. ( 10 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of S. 81 of the R. P. Act under which both the Election Petitions have been filed, postulates as follows :"81. Presentation of petitions. (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-sec. ( 10 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of S. 81 of the R. P. Act under which both the Election Petitions have been filed, postulates as follows :"81. Presentation of petitions. (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-sec. (1) of S. 100 and S. 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Explanation.- In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. " ( 11 ) THE grounds on which the election of a returned candidate can be declared to be void are mentioned in S. 100 of the R. P. Act. The grounds in S. 100 are many in number, such as a returned candidate was qualified or dis-qualified or he was guilty of corrupt practice or his nomination has been improperly rejected. Precisely, such grounds are enumerated under the heading "ground for declaring election to be void". The grounds in S. 100 are many in number, such as a returned candidate was qualified or dis-qualified or he was guilty of corrupt practice or his nomination has been improperly rejected. Precisely, such grounds are enumerated under the heading "ground for declaring election to be void". The said Section provides;100 Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion- (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been imporperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the imporper acceptance of any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the providions of the Constitution or of this Act or of the any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. ( 12 ) THE main thrust of the petitioners is that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected because of improper rejection of the nomination of petitioner Satya Deo Singh. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner Satya Deo Singh had filed his nomination papers proposed by one proposer, to contest the general election being held for 26th Sultanpur Parliamentary Constituency in four sets on 10/09/1999 at about 12. 45 hours. Sri Satya Deo Singh filed notice in Form B before the9 Assistant Returning Officer on 14/09/1999 at 5. 45 hours. Sri Satya Deo Singh filed notice in Form B before the9 Assistant Returning Officer on 14/09/1999 at 5. 20 p. m. ( 14 ) THE provisions for presentation of nomination paper, requirements for a valid nomination and scrutiny of the nominations are provided under S. 33 and 36 of the Act. The relevant extract of the said provisions are reproduced herein;"33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. (1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of S. 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven oclock in the forenoon and three oclock in the afternoon deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under S. 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer;provided that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party,shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten propospers being electors of the Constituency;provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the Returning Officer on a day which is a public holiday;provided also that in the case of a local authorities constituency, graduates constituency or teachers constituency, the reference to an elector of the constituency as proposer shall be construed as a reference to "ten per cent of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors whichever is less, as proposers. "scrutiny of nominations (1) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under S. 30, the candidates, their election agents, one proposer of each candidate, and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate, but no other person, may attend at such time and place as the Returning Officer may appoint; and the Returning Officer shall give them all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in S. 33. (2) The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds- (a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely-Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191. Part II of this Act and S. 4 and 14 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or (b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of S. 33 of S. 34; or (c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine. (3) Nothing contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-sec. (2) shall be deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination of any candidate on the ground of any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by means of another nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed. (4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. " (5) The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of S. 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or any causes beyond his control:provided that in case an objection is raised by the Returning Officer or is made by any other person the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned. (6) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (7 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (7 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 ( 15 ) IN exercise of powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Election Commission of India has issued the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. This order provides for allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates, for classification of symbols into reserved symbols- reserved for exclusive allotment to contesting candidates set up by a recognised political party, and free symbol- which is a symbol other than a reserved symbol. Para 6 classifies political parties into recognised and unrecognised political parties. A recognised political party may be a Naional Party or a State Party. A candidate set up by a recognised party in an election can choose only a symbol reserved for that political party. Para 13 of the Symbol Order as effective at the relevant time provides as under;"13. Para 6 classifies political parties into recognised and unrecognised political parties. A recognised political party may be a Naional Party or a State Party. A candidate set up by a recognised party in an election can choose only a symbol reserved for that political party. Para 13 of the Symbol Order as effective at the relevant time provides as under;"13. When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party.- For the purposes of an election from any parliamentary or assembly constituency to which this Order applies, a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party in any such parliamentary or assembly constituency, if, and only if,- (a) the candidate has made the prescribed declaration to this effect in his nomination paper; (b) a notice by the political party in writing, in Form B, to that effect has, not later than 3 p. m. on the last date for making nominations, been delivered to the Returning Officer of the constituency; (c) the said notice in From B is signed by the President, the Secretary or any other office bearer of the party, and the President, Secretary or such other office bearer sending the notice has ben authorised by the party to send such notice; (d) the name and specimen signatue of such authorised person are communicated by the party, in Form A, to the Returning Officer of the constituency and to the Chief Electoral Oficer of the (State or Union Territory concerned), not later than 3 p. m. on the last date for making nomination; and (e) Forms A and B are signed, in ink only, by the said office bearer or person authorised by the party;"provided that no fascimile signatue or signature by means of rubber stamp, etc. , of any such office bearer or authorised person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. , of any such office bearer or authorised person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. " ( 16 ) FOR the purpose of the Symbols Orders, as defined in clause (h) of para 2, "political party" means an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Comission as a political party under Section 29-A of the R. P. Act The privilege enjoyed by a candidate set up by a reognised political party, as spelt out by a combined reading of Section 33 of the R. P. Act with the provisions of the Symbols Order, is that his nomination paper is complete, inter alia, if proposed by an elector, (i. e. one only) of the constituency. If the candidate be one not set up by a recognised political party, his nomination paper must be subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency. ( 17 ) IT has been submitted by he learned counsel for the petitioners that the nomination paper of the petitioner was properly filed as per the provisions of Section 33 of the R. P. Act. Hence, it could not have been rejected by the Returning Officer. It has further been submitted that sub-para (b) of para 13 of the Symbols Order is unreasonable because there may be chances when a candidate set up by the political party could not file notice in Form B to the Returning Officer of the Constituency by 3 p. m. on the last date for making nomination due to unavoidable circumstances. As stated above, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner Sri Satya Deo Singh did not deliver notice in Form B to he Returning Officer of the Constituency before 3 p. m. on the last date for making nominations. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if objections were raised during scrutiny to the validity of the nomination papers of Sri Satya Deo Singh, the Returning Officer should have given an opportunity to Sri Satya Deo Singh to rebut the objection by giving him time "not later than the next day". That since the notice in Form B had already been submitted to the Returning Officer, the nomination could not have been rejected. That since the notice in Form B had already been submitted to the Returning Officer, the nomination could not have been rejected. ( 18 ) IN the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 489 ( AIR 1999 SC 935 ) it has been held that;"a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision, inter alia, shows that after the amendment1 of Section 33 (1) of the Act, a nomination paper of a candidate in order to be valid must be : at page 937; of AIR : (i) where the candidate is set up by a political party; (a) signed by the candidate and a proposer; (b) contain a declaration by the candidate to the effect that he has been set up by a recognised political party; (c) be supported by a notice (Forms A and B) duly signed by the President, Secretary or any other office bearer of the party duly authorised by the party to send such a notice; and (d) the name and specimen signatures of such an 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 making nominations; (ii) where the candidate is not set up by a recognised political party, his nomination paper shall be valid only if it is subscribed by ten proposers, being electors of the constituency. " ( 19 ) IT has further been provided in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) that Returning Officer appears to have been labouring under some misconception when he recorded that the political party "cannot be given further time to change such authorisation after scrutiny". Under the proviso to Section 36 (5) of the Act, the scrutiny itself would have been postponed to the adjourned time and, therefore, it was not a case of meeting the objection after scrutiny of the nomination papers. The Returning Officer is not expected to reject a nomination paper without giving an opportunity to the candidate or his repesentative present at the time of scrutiny to meet an objection capable of being met, particularly where such an opportunity is sought for by the candidate or his representative. The Returning Officer is not expected to reject a nomination paper without giving an opportunity to the candidate or his repesentative present at the time of scrutiny to meet an objection capable of being met, particularly where such an opportunity is sought for by the candidate or his representative. ( 20 ) IN the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that an opportunity be afforded to a candidate to meet an objection capable of being met. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the objection raised in respect of compliance of sub-para (b) of 13 of the Symbols Order was not capable of being met and, therefoe, Returning Officer rightly did not grant time to he petitioner to meet the objection. The contention cannot be said to be just without force. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that non-filing of Form B by 3. 00 p. m. on the last date of making nomination papers is not a defect of substantial character and, therefore, the Returning Officer was not justified in ejecting the nomination paper of Sri Satya Deo Singh. Sub-section (5) of Section 36 provides that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination papers on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Returning Officer could have allowed time to Sri Satya Deo Singh to submit Form B till the date of scrutiny of nomination papers. That Sri Satya Deo Singh had already submited Form B to the Assistant Returning Officer on the last date for making nomination at 5. 20 p. m. , and, therefore, his nomination could not have rejeted. ( 22 ) IT has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the changed law, the Returning Officer has to satisfy himself at the time of scrutiny of nominations, as to whether a candidate who claims to have been set up by a recogised national or State party and whose nomination paper is subscribed only one elector as proposer has in fact been duly set up by such recognised party or not, so far as to decide the validity or otherwise of his nomination paper. ( 23 ) IN the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), three candidates had filed nomination papers as duly authorised candidates of BJP. The Returning Officer suo motu took this fact into account and held that since the BJP has set up more than one candidate in the election, therefore, none could be treated as a candidate set up by a recognised political party- the BJP. He, therefore, rejected the nomination papers of the respondent. In such situation. Honble Supreme Court has held that the Returning Officer should have given an opportuniy to the candidate or his representative to meet the objection. In the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) all the three candidates had filed their nomination papers and they had complied with all the conditions envisaged in para 13 of the Symbols Order. In the present case admittedly, Sri Satya Deo Singh has not complied with the condition envisaged in para 13 (b) of the Symbols Order. The law laid down by the2 Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) is, therefore, of no help to the petitioners. ( 24 ) IT is being pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the Election Commission has no legislative power and, therefore, he could not have made the elction Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. ( 25 ) THE Symbols Order has been issued by the Election Commission in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules. Paragraph 2 of the Symbols Order contains the various definitions. According to Clause (h) of that paragraph, political party means an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Commission as a political party under Paragraph 3 and includes a political party deemed to be registered with the Commission under the proviso to sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph. Paragraph 3 deals with registration with the Commission of associations and bodies as political parties for the purpose of the Order. Paragraph 5 deals with the classification of symbols. According to this paragraph, a reserved symbol is a symbol reserved for a political party for exclusive use by that party. Paragraph 8 deals with choice of symbols by candidates of national and State parties and allotment thereof. Paragraph 5 deals with the classification of symbols. According to this paragraph, a reserved symbol is a symbol reserved for a political party for exclusive use by that party. Paragraph 8 deals with choice of symbols by candidates of national and State parties and allotment thereof. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 deal with certain restrictions on the allotment of symbols, concessions to certain candidates as well as the choice of symbols by some categories of candidates. Paragraph 13 specifies as to when a candidate shall be deemed to be set up as a candidate by a political party. ( 26 ) PERUSAL of the different paragraphs of the Symbols Order makes it a manifest that they provide, as is made clear by its preamble, for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in Parliamentary and assembly constituencies as well as for the ecognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. In the case of Sadiq Ali v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1972 SC 187 , in which the vires of paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order was challenged, while upholding the vires of paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, it was held that at page 193;"there is also no substance in the contention that as power to make provisions in respect to elections has been given to the Parliament by Article 327 of the Constitution, the power cannot be further delegated to the Commission. The opening words of Article 327 are "subject to the provisions of this Constitution". The above words indicate that any law made by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 327 would be subject to the other provisions of the Constitution including Article 324. Article 324 as mentioned above provides that superintendence, direction and control of elections shall be vested in Election Commission. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the Comission issues direction, it does so not on its own behalf but as the delegate of some other authority. It may also be mentioned in this context that when the Central Government issued Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 in exercise of its powers under Section 169 of the R. P. Act, it did so as required by that section after consultation with the Commission". It may also be mentioned in this context that when the Central Government issued Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 in exercise of its powers under Section 169 of the R. P. Act, it did so as required by that section after consultation with the Commission". ( 27 ) OVERRULING the objection raised as to the validity of the Symbols Order on the ground that it was legislative in character and the Commission had no power to issue it in the absence of entrustment of the power to make a law in relation to elections, the Honble Supreme Court observed in All Party Hill Leaders Conferene, Shillong v. Captain M. A. Sangma reported in (1977) 4 SCC 161 : ( AIR 1977 SC 2155 ), thus, ( 28 ) IT is not necessary in this appeal to deal with the question whether the Symbols Order made by the Commission is a piece of legislative activity. It is enough to hold, which we do, that the Comission is empowered in its own right under Article 324 of the Constitution and also under Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules to make directions in general in widest terms necessary and also in specific cases in order to facilitate a free and fair election with promptitude. It is, therefore, legitimate on the part of the Commission to make general provisions even in anticipation or in the light of experience in respect of maters relatng to symbols. That would also inevitably require it to regulate its own procedure in dealing with dispute regarding choice of symbols when raised before it. Further that would also sometimes inevitably lead to adjudication of disputes with regard to recognition of parties or rival claims to a particular symbol. The Symbols Order is, therefore, a compendium of directions in the shape of general provisions to meet3 various kinds of situations appertaining to elections with particular reference to symbols. The power to make these directions, whether it is a legislative activity or not, flows from Article 324 as well as from Rules 5 and 10. It was held in Sadiq Ali that "if the Comission is not to be disabled from exercising effectively the plenary powers vested in it in the matter of allotment of symbol and for issuing directions in connection therewith. It was held in Sadiq Ali that "if the Comission is not to be disabled from exercising effectively the plenary powers vested in it in the matter of allotment of symbol and for issuing directions in connection therewith. It is plainly essential that the Commission should have the power to settle a dispute in case claim for the allotment of the symbol of a political party is made by two rival claimants". It has been held in Sadiq Ali that the Commission has been clothed with plenary powers by Rule 5 and sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 10 of the Rules in the matter of allotment of symbols. ( 29 ) IN Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh, reported in 1982 (3) SCC 487 : ( AIR 1982 SC 1559 ) the Honble Supreme Court has held that the Symbols Order made by the Election Comission in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, are in the nature of general directions issued by the Election Commission to regulate the mode of allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates. It is a matter of common knowledge that elections in our country are fought on the basis of symbols. It must but logically follow as a necessary corollary that the Symbols Order is an order made under the Act. Any other view would be destructive of the very fabric of our system of holding Parliamentary and Assembly constituency elections in the country on the basis of adult suffrage. ( 30 ) IN the case of Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R. K. Trivedi reported in (1985) 4 SCC 628 : ( AIR 1985 SC 111 ) while dealing with Rules 5 and 10 of the Rules and Article 324 (1) of the Constitution, the Honble Supreme Court has held that a direction may mean an order issued to a particular individual or a precept which many may have to follow. It may be a specific or a general order. It may be a specific or a general order. One has also to remember that the source of power in this case is the Constitution, the highest law of the land, which is the repository and source of all legal powers and any power granted by the Constitution for a specific purpose should be construed liberally so that the object for which the power is granted is effectively achieved. Viewed from this angle it cannot be said that any of the provisions of the Symbols Order suffers from want of authority on the part of the Commission, which has issued it. ( 31 ) IT, therefore, follows that the Commission has the power to issue the Symbols Order. ( 32 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has further contended that paragraph 13 of the Symbols Order is unreasonable as it imposes resrictions on a candidate to file a notice by the political party in writing, in Form B, to the effect that he shall be deemed to be set up by the political party not later than 3 p. m. on the last date of making nominations. In the case of Thampanoor Ravi v. Charupara Ravi reported in (1999) 8 SCC 74 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3309 ) while dealing the point as to whether the vires of any provision of any Act can be adjudicated in the election petition, it has been held by Honble Supreme Court as under ;"under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution no election to a legislature shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided by or made by the appropriate legislature. Under Section 80-A of the RP Act, the forum for adjudication of an election petition is the High Court. The scope of this provision is considered by this Court in Upadhyaya Hargovind Devshanker v. Dhirendrasinh Virbhadrasinhji Solanki. In that decision, the question was whether an order made on an intelocutory application in an election petition could be the subject of a letters patent appeal. It was observed in that decision hat conferment of power under the RP Act to try any election does not amount to enlargement of the existing jurisdiction of the High Court. In that decision, the question was whether an order made on an intelocutory application in an election petition could be the subject of a letters patent appeal. It was observed in that decision hat conferment of power under the RP Act to try any election does not amount to enlargement of the existing jurisdiction of the High Court. The jurisdiction exercisable under the RP Act is a special jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. Therefore, even though the High Court may otherwise exercise ordinary and extraordinary jurisdiction it would be difficult to envisage a situation that while trying an election petition is exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the RP Act it can adjudicate upon the vires of the RP Act or any rule or order made thereunder and the election petition has to be tried in accordance with the provisions of the RP Act and thus the Cout cannot entertain and pronounce upon maters which do not fall within the ambit of Section 10 of the RP Act. Even an ordinary civil Court will not have jurisdiction to decide questions arising under insolvency enactment; much less a special authority like the High Court when it is not invested with such power under the Insolvency Act. " ( 33 ) IT is, thus, a well established principle that the High Court while acting as Election Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by the R. P. Act can only adjudicate upon the matters relating to the R. P. Act and cannot pronounce upon the matter which do not fall within the ambit of that law. It, therefore, follows that this Court as an Election Tribunal cannot go ino the question as to whether the provisions of Order 13 (b) of the Symbols Order are reasonable or not. Accordingly the petitioners contention on this issue is rejected. ( 34 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the nomination of Sri Satya Deo Singh was improperly rejected. That sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act clearly provides that the returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character and non-filing of notice under Para 13 (b) of the Symbols Order is not a defect of a substantial character, therefore, the nomination could not have been rejected. As already stated, there is no dispue about the fact that the petitioner Sri Satya Deo Singh did not file notice by the political party in writing, in Form B, to the effect that he has been set up by the said political party. Bhartiya Janta Party, before 3 p. m. on the last date of making nomination to the Returning Officer of the Constituency, the said notice was delivered at 5. 20 p. m. , that is, after the prescribed time. Sri Satya Deo Singh had challenged the rejetion of his nomination paper in this Court by writ petition No. 4221 (MB) of 1999. In the said writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court has held that when a candidate fails to substantiate his claim that he has been set up by a political party to contest the election then it amounts to defect of substantial character. It has further been held that the mistake of non-filing of Form B is a defect of substantial character and cannot be ectified by filing afidavit or by filing the same after the expiry of the scheduled time. ( 35 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the judgment of Sri Satya Deo Singh itself, it has been held that the observations, if any, made on the facts of the case, would not prejudice the merit of the election petition of the petitioners, and, therefore, the observations made in the judgment are not binding. Rebuting this conention, the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that in view of the decisions of the Honble Court only the observations made on the facts of the case would not be binding but so far as the observations made in respect of law are concerned they are binding. Relying on the decision of Sri Satya Deo Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the findings of the Honble Court that filing of Froms A and B before the Returning Officer is a statutory obligation and not filing the same is a defect of substantial character which is not curable, is a finding of law which is binding in nature. ( 36 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the question which has been determined in Satya Deo Singhs case would be ratio decidendi and as such binding on this Court. ( 36 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the question which has been determined in Satya Deo Singhs case would be ratio decidendi and as such binding on this Court. In the case of Marta Silva v. Piedade Cardozo, reported in AIR 1969 Goa, Daman and Diu 94, it has been held that the question which is necessary for the determination of a case would be the ratio decidendi. The statement made, in passing, are in the nature of obiter dicta. Since the question as to whether non-filing of notice under Form B is a defect of substantial character or not was necessary for determination and, therefore, decision given on such question would be ratio decidendi and would therefore be finding. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, J and K v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 58 : (1995 AIR SCW 1717), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the judgment of coordinate Bench is binding in nature. In the instant case the judgment of Sri Satya Deo Singhs case has been given by a Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, it is binding. ( 37 ) RULE 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules requires every nomination paper presented under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the R. P. Act to be complete in such one of the Forms 2-A to 2-E as may be appropriate and, therefore, the blank space meant for showing three symbols in order of preference as symbols of the candidates choice, has to be filled in; however, non-filing of the space as to choice of symbol is not a defect of a substantial character. Such deficiency in the nomination paper is saved by the proviso to Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which provides that failure to complete or defect in completing the declaration as to symbol in a nomination paper shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 36. While dealing with this aspect of the case, in the case of Krishna Mohini v. Mohinder Nath Sofact, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 145 : ( AIR 2000 SC 317 ) the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the distinction between nomination filed by a candidate set up by a recognised political party and a candidate not set up by a recognised political party is precise. A perusal of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act makes it clear that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, meaning thereby a candidate set up by an unrecognised political party or an independent candidate, in order to be duly nominated for election must have his nomination paper subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the constituency. If such nomination paper be subscribed by only one elector as proposer or by a number of electors less than ten, then it will amount to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33. In order to be a candidate set up by a registered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being proposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in in sub-paras (a) (b) (c) and (d) of para 13 of the Symbols Orders must be satisfied. If any one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of nomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him. A situation can be visualised where more candidates than one may be aspiring to be the candidates, each set up by the same recognised political party. The one in respect of whom notice and communication in Forms a and b referable to sub-paras (b), (c) and (d) of para 13 of the symbols Order have been filed not later than 3 p. m. on the last date for making nominations shall be treated as a candidate set up by such political party. His nomination paper, even if subscribed to by a single elector as proposer, shall be valid subject to satisfying other conditions as to validity. His nomination paper, even if subscribed to by a single elector as proposer, shall be valid subject to satisfying other conditions as to validity. If any of the requirements completed by sub-paras (b), (c) and (d) of para 13 of the Symbols Order are not complied with by filing the requisite notice and communication, then the candidate shall not be deemed to be one set up by the recognised political party, his nomination, if subscribed by a single elector or electors less than ten, shall be liable to be rejected. If the nomination paper of such a candidate is subscribed to by ten proposers being electors of the constituency within the meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, then the nomination paper cannot be rejected because an error or omission as regards symbols or choice thereof being a defect not of a substantial character, would not come in the way of the nomination being accepted, but if the nomination paper and such a candidate is subscribed to by only one proposer and from B has not been filed within the stipulated time than non-filing of from B would be a defect of substantial character. ( 38 ) THUS, it is clear that if the requirements contemplated in para (b) of para 13 of the Symbols Order is not complied with by filing the requisite notice not later than 3 p. m. on the last date of making nominations then the candidate shall not be deemed to be one set up by the recognised political party and his nomination paper, if subscribed by a single elector shall be liable to be rejected. ( 39 ) IN the instant case, the nomination paper of Sri Satya Deo Singh was subscribed by only one proposer. Admittedly, it was not delivered to the Returning Officer of the Constituency before 3 p. m. on the last date of making nominations. Thus, the conditions provided in sub-para (b) of para 13 was not complied with and, therefore, the nomination of Sri Satya Deo Singh was incomplete and liable to be rejected. 39-A. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitions do not disclose any cause of action or issues and further the pleadings are irrelevant, frivolous and unnecessary. Thus, the conditions provided in sub-para (b) of para 13 was not complied with and, therefore, the nomination of Sri Satya Deo Singh was incomplete and liable to be rejected. 39-A. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitions do not disclose any cause of action or issues and further the pleadings are irrelevant, frivolous and unnecessary. The petitioners have abused the process of law or Court by filing these baseless petitions and, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. It has further been contended that the petitioners have not, in compliance with the provisions6 of Section 83 of the R. P. Act, disclosed the material facts and therefore the averments made by them in their petitions being irrelevant and unnecessary are liable to be struck off. A perusal of Section 83 of the R. P. Act would reveal that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. In most of the paragraphs the petitioners have raised issues relating to the validity of the Symbols Order. As observed above, the validity of the Symbols Order cannot be agitated in an election petition. More over the validity of the Symbols Order and its provisions have already been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. ( 40 ) IN the case of D. Ramchandran v. R. V. Jankiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1128 ), the Honble Supreme Court has held that under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court is enabled to strike out a pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Having recourse to the said decision, if it is held that the provisions of Symbols Order are valid and mandatory then there remains nothing in these petitions to be adjudicated upon. Having recourse to the said decision, if it is held that the provisions of Symbols Order are valid and mandatory then there remains nothing in these petitions to be adjudicated upon. ( 41 ) IN the case of V. Narayanaswamy v. C. P. Thirunavukkarasu, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 294 : ( AIR 2000 SC 694 ), the Honble Supreme Court has held that it will be thus seen that an election petition is based on the rights, which are purely the creature of a statute, and if the statute renders any particular requirement mandatory, the Court cannot exercise dispensing powers to waive non-compliance. For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the Court has to find out whether these averments disclose a cause of action or a triable isssue as such. Sections 81, 83 (1) (c) and 86 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules and Form 25 are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read if the Court finds non-compliance it has to uphold the preliminary objection and has no option except to dismiss the petition. ( 42 ) IN the case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1577 ), the Honble Supreme Court has held that on a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paragraphs of a petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order VI, Rule 16 and if the Court finds that no triable issue remain to be considered, it has power to reject the election petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are consistent decisions of Honble Supreme Court on this point. There are consistent decisions of Honble Supreme Court on this point. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1253 : (1986 All LJ 625), the Honble Supreme Court has held that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and it is settled that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not an election petition at all. While holding that the election petition can be dismissed summarily it has been held that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence is a throughly misconceived and untenable arguments. Since the Court has the power to act at the threshold the power must be exercised at the threshold itself in case the Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power and that exercise of such power is warranted under the relevant provisions of law. ( 43 ) SUPPLEMENTING his arguments on the points envisaged under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the petitioner Satya Deo Singh has not complied with the mandatory requirement contained in sub-para (b) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order and the petitioners have tried to challenge the vires of the provisions of Symbols Order which cannot be looked into the election petition and thus the allegation deserves to be struck off under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 44 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relying on the case of D. Ramchandran v. R. V. Jankiraman (supra) has contended that the election petition should not be rejected in limine without a trial. The contention of7 the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable as in that case specific allegation of corrupt practices were made and, therefore, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the dismissal of the election petition in limine without a trial was not justified. The contention of7 the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable as in that case specific allegation of corrupt practices were made and, therefore, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the dismissal of the election petition in limine without a trial was not justified. ( 45 ) RELYING on the case of Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba alias Dadasaheb, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 392 : (1994 AIR SCW 2028), the learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that there is reasonable cause of action and, therefore, the petitions cannot be dismissed summarily. in the case of Mohan Rawale (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that a reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause of action with some chances of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. But so long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. In the present case, there is no cause of action, what to say reasonable cause of action because admittedly the petitioner, Sri Satya Deo Singh has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Symbols Order. No other triable issue is made out in the election petitions. ( 46 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party has given up the plea that the petition of Sri Satya Dev Singh is barred by time. ( 47 ) AS discussed above, election law is complete code and Section 81 of the R. P. Act specifically provides that an election petition can be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the said Act. From the pleadings of the petitioners none of the alleged ground is made out and, therefore, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 48 ) HAVING regard to what has been discussed above, I am inclined to hold that both the petitions do not disclose any cause of action or triable issue and as such they are not maintainable under Section 81 of the R. P. Act. The preliminary objections raised by the respondents are allowed and accordingly both these petitions are dismissed with costs.