JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - Elections were held to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha in the month of February, 2000. Respondent-Ram Phal Kundu who had contested the aforesaid election from 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency as a Candidate of Indian National Lok Dal Party (hereinafter referred to as the "INLD") was declared elected. Petitioner-Kamal Sharma had also filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as "Congress Party"). The said nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Through the present petition, the petitioner has now challenged the election of respondent-Ram Phal Kundu to the aforesaid 50- Safidon Assembly Constituency on the ground that his (Petitioners) nomination papers were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. He has accordingly filed the present petition under Sections 80, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the "Act"). 2. A notification dated January 24, 2000 was issued by the Election Commission of India calling for the elections to the State of Haryana. The following programme was announced : Filing of nomination papers : 27.1.2000 to 3.2.2000 Scrutiny of nomination papers : 4.2.2000 Last date for withdrawal of candidature : 7.2.2000 Allotment of symbols : 7.2.2000 after 3.00 PM Date of polling, if necessary : 22.2.2000 Counting of votes : 25.2.2000 3. On the basis of the aforesaid notification, the elections were also to be held for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. The petitioner has averred that he was an elector/voter of the aforesaid 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and as such was eligible to contest the election. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he applied to the Indian National Congress Party which is a national recognised political party for sponsoring his name for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency to contest the election as a candidate of the said party. His case is that the Central Election Committee of the aforesaid party selected him as a candidate to contest the election for the aforesaid 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and issued a press release dated February 2, 2000 whereby a list was released of various candidates selected by the party as its final candidates. The name of the petitioner was also included in the aforesaid list. 4. The name of the petitioner was also included in the aforesaid list. 4. In pursuance to section 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter called the "Symbols Order") a candidate set up by a recognised political party was required to submit a declaration to that effect in his nomination paper which was required to be accompanied by a notice in writing to that effect signed by the President, the Secretary or any officer-bearer, so authorised by the party to send such notice. Thus for such sponsored candidates, the nomination papers were required to be accompanied by Form A nominating and authorising a person by the party and Form B which was to be signed by such authorised person giving a notice to the Returning Officer about the sponsoring of the aforesaid candidate. Accordingly the petitioner, who has claimed that he was sponsored by the Indian National Congress, submitted his nomination papers on February 3, 2000 at 12.20 p.m. 5. The aforesaid nomination papers were accompanied by Form A whereby Shri Moti Lal Vora, General Secretary of the Indian National Congress Party nominated Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee as an authorised person as required under the Symbols Order and also a notice in Form B signed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, being the authorised person, giving an intimation/notice to the Returning Officer of the aforesaid constituency with regard to the nomination of the petitioner as a sponsored candidate of the Congress Party. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the nomination papers filed by him were complete in all respects. 6. Subsequently, on the same date i.e. February 3, 2000, one Bachan Singh also filed his nomination papers at 2.50 p.m. While filing the aforesaid nomination appears, the aforesaid Bachan Singh also claimed to be a candidate sponsored by Indian National Congress Party. Accordingly, his nomination papers were also accompanied by Forms A and B. 7. As per the election programme, February 4, 2000 was the date fixed for conducting scrutiny of the nomination papers submitted by various candidates prior to the last date of filing the nomination papers. Accordingly, his nomination papers were also accompanied by Forms A and B. 7. As per the election programme, February 4, 2000 was the date fixed for conducting scrutiny of the nomination papers submitted by various candidates prior to the last date of filing the nomination papers. At the time of scrutiny one Pannu Ram, who was an official of the Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, Chandigarh, handed over a letter dated February 3, 2002 written by the President, Haryana Pradesh Congress (I), Committee, Chandigarh, addressed to the Returning Officer of 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency, intimating that the petitioner was the official candidate of the Congress Party for the aforesaid 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and nobody else. The petitioner goes on to plead that in fact it was mentioned in the said letter that any other unsealed unauthorised letter of the party submitted by any other person was not legal. The petitioner has pleaded that upon receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Returning Officer told the aforesaid Pannu Ram that before taking any decision in the matter he would like to talk to President Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee-Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. Thereupon the returning officer had a talk with Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda on his mobile-phone No. 9811011715 and asked Shri Hooda to file an affidavit in support of the contents of the letter which was handed over by the aforesaid official to the Returning Officer. 8. At the time of scrutiny, the petitioner had also raised objections with regard to the nomination papers filed by the aforesaid Bachan Singh. The petitioner claims that besides talking to the President of the Haryana Unit of the Indian National Congress party, the Returning Officer also talked in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh and enquired as to whether Form B in respect of Bachan Singh had reached in their office. The petitioner has claimed that in fact as per the telephonic conversation, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh informed the Returning Officer that it was only Form B with regard to the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma which was received in their office and no form B in respect of Bachan Singh had reached their office. The petitioner has claimed that in fact as per the telephonic conversation, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh informed the Returning Officer that it was only Form B with regard to the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma which was received in their office and no form B in respect of Bachan Singh had reached their office. Upon receipt of the aforesaid information and after talking with Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the Returning Officer adjourned the scrutiny proceedings to February 5, 2000 at 11.00 a.m. As required by the Returning Officer, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of the Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee filed an affidavit dated February 4, 2000 before the Returning Officer affirming that the petitioner was the only person nominated as a party candidate of the Indian National Congress and no other unsealed unauthorisation letter of the party submitted by any person was valid. In addition to the aforesaid affidavit, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda also wrote a communication dated February 4, 2000 to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi clarifying that the petitioner was the only official candidate of the Indian National Congress for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. A copy of the aforesaid letter was also faxed to the Returning Officer. 9. The scrutiny recommenced at 11.00 a.m. on February 5, 2000. The petitioner claims that after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Returning Officer passed an order dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said objections were dismissed by the Returning Officer with a pre-determined mind and without taking into consideration the various issues raised by the petitioner. Upon the dismissal of the objections filed by the petitioner, the Returning Officer also rejected his nomination papers vide order dated February 5, 2000. The petitioner claimed that he was the only candidate of the Indian National Congress Party as Forms A and B submitted by him along with his nomination papers were duly signed and stamped by the President of the party whereas Form B filed by Bachan Singh was invalid as it was not having the seal of the party. The petitioner claimed that he was the only candidate of the Indian National Congress Party as Forms A and B submitted by him along with his nomination papers were duly signed and stamped by the President of the party whereas Form B filed by Bachan Singh was invalid as it was not having the seal of the party. It was further claimed by the petitioner that since the president of the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee-Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda had submitted a letter dated February 3, 2000 and also an affidavit dated February 4, 2000 to the Returning Officer categorically clarifying that the petitioner was the only person nominated by the Congress Party as its candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and since no other authorisation letter with the seal of the party was submitted by any other candidate which was valid, therefore, the rejection of the objections qua the nomination papers filed by Bachan Singh was wholly contrary to law and facts and the nomination papers filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected. 10. On the passing of the order dated February 5, 2000 by the Returning Officer, the petitioner approached the Chief Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi through a petition and all the facts and circumstances were detailed out in the aforesaid petition. The Election Commission of India in exercise of powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India passed an order dated February 7, 2000. The petition filed by the petitioner was accepted and the order dated February 5, 2000 passed by the Returning Officer 50-Safidon Constituency was set aside. A detailed order was passed directing the Returning Officer to cause re-scrutiny in accordance with law. The re- scrutiny was ordered to be conducted on February 8, 2000 at 10.00 a.m. While passing the aforesaid order the Election Commission of India also directed the Returning Officer to give a notice to Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee to be present at the time of scrutiny proceedings. 11. As per the directions issued by the Election Commission of India, the Returning Officer gave a notice to the petitioner, Bachan Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee to be present in his office of February 8, 2000 at 10.00 a.m. for the purpose of scrutiny. 11. As per the directions issued by the Election Commission of India, the Returning Officer gave a notice to the petitioner, Bachan Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee to be present in his office of February 8, 2000 at 10.00 a.m. for the purpose of scrutiny. Accordingly, the petitioner and Bachan Singh Arya appeared on the aforesaid date and time. Even Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda appeared in person. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that at the time of the aforesaid re-scrutiny, Shri Hooda after the inspection of the record clarified that : (i) Petitioner Kamal Sharma son of Shri Janardhan was the authorised candidate of the Indian National Congress for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. Form B issued to him (Shri Kamal Sharma) bore the seal of the party. (ii) Bachan Singh was not the authorised candidate of the party. Form B submitted by him did not bear the any seal of the party; (iii) The name of Bachan Singh as a candidate of the Indian National Congress for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency was under consideration; (iv) Form B signed by him (Shri Hooda) for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency was given to someone with the instructions that the same should not be issued in favour of Shri Bachan Singh till the approval was accorded by him (Shri Hooda) on the telephone and he (Shri Hooda) had not granted any such approval. 13. The letter clarifying the aforesaid facts was addressed by Shri Hooda to the Returning Officer on February 3, 2000. It is claimed by the petitioner that although Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda had requested the Returning Officer to record his statement but the Returning Officer despite the aforesaid request declined to record the statement. The Returning Officer after hearing the parties concerned and the clarifications furnished by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda pronounced his orders on February 8, 2000 at about 4.30 p.m. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The election symbol of the Indian National Congress Party was ordered to be allotted to Bachan Singh who was declared to be an official candidate of the aforesaid party. 14. The petitioner again brought the matter to the notice of the Election Commission of India through a letter dated February 9, 2000. However, he claimed that no action was taken by the Election Commission on the aforesaid petition. 14. The petitioner again brought the matter to the notice of the Election Commission of India through a letter dated February 9, 2000. However, he claimed that no action was taken by the Election Commission on the aforesaid petition. Ultimately, the elections of the aforesaid Constituency were held on February 22, 2000. After the counting of votes, the result was declared on February 25, 2000. Respondent-Ram Phal Kundu was elected. 15. The petitioner has now approached this court through the present election petition filed under selections 80, 81 and 100 of the Act for declaring the election of aforesaid respondent-Ram Phal Kundu to 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency as void on the ground that his own (the petitioners) nomination papers were improperly rejected. While elaborating the aforesaid ground in the petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Returning Officer whereby his objections qua nomination papers of Bachan Singh had been rejected by the Returning Officer and consequently his own nomination papers were rejected. 16. A notice of the election petition was issued to the respondent. After putting in appearance respondent-Ram Kundu has filed the written statement. The claim of the petitioner has been contested. The action of the Returning Officer has been defended. It has been stated by the respondent that in fact the nomination papers of the petitioner had subsequently been rescinded by the Indian National Congress Party which had subsequently nominated Bachan Singh as its official candidate. 17. Aforesaid Bachan Singh had filed his nomination papers along with Forms A and B as required by the Symbols Order before the Returning Officer. While submitting the aforesaid nomination papers it was specifically notified by said Bachan Singh that nomination of the petitioner being a Congress candidate had been rescinded and that thereafter Bachan Singh was the official candidate. 18. The respondent has maintained that whereas the petitioner had submitted his nomination papers along with Forms A and B at 12.20 p.m. on February 3, 2000, the aforesaid Bachan Singh had filed his nomination papers on February 3, 2000 at 2.50 p.m. along with Forms A and B. In the aforesaid forms A and B submitted by Bachan Singh, the sponsorship of the petitioner as an official candidate of the Congress party had been rescinded. Since after the submission of nomination forms and Forms A and B by Bachan Singh no further notice had been received in Form B upto 3.00 p.m. of the last date of nomination, therefore, the nomination of Bachan Singh as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress was accepted. 19. In his written statement, the respondent has further maintained that the letter of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda said to have been submitted on February 4, 2000 was of no consequence and could not have been taken into consideration in view of Para-13 and 13-A of the Symbols Order which provided that a notice in writing in Form B regarding declaration of the official candidate had to be submitted before the Returning Officer upto 3.00 p.m. of the last date. He further submitted that since the name of Bachan Singh was not rescinded in the aforesaid letter, therefore, the same was liable to be ignored by the Returning Officer. 20. The respondent has further claimed that after the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioner as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress Party, the aforesaid Bachan Singh Arya contested the election as an official nominee of the aforesaid party and contested the election against the aforesaid respondent and the respondent ultimately scored more votes and as such was declared elected. The action of the Returning Officer has been defended by the respondent. 21. Additionally it was also stated by respondent that the petitioner had concealed and mis-stated the material facts and had relied upon the unamended provisions of the Act and had also attached the unamended list issued by the party and, therefore, the petitioner having not come to the court with clean hands was not entitled to any relief. 22. Vide order dated September 15, 2000, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the nomination papers of the petitioner were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. If so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has not come to this Court which clean hands. If so, its effect ? OPR 3. Relief. 23. During the course of proceedings, both the parties led their evidence. Whether the nomination papers of the petitioner were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. If so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has not come to this Court which clean hands. If so, its effect ? OPR 3. Relief. 23. During the course of proceedings, both the parties led their evidence. The petitioner has produced PW1 Bernard John, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi, PW2 Ravi Shankar son of Ram Chander, Election Kanungo, District Election office, Jind, PW3 Som Nath Luthra, Assistant Chief Election Officer, Haryana, PW4 Pannu Ram, Clerk, of the office of Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, Chandigarh, PW5 Bhupinder Singh Hooda, President of Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee, besides himself stepping into the witness box as PW6 in support of his case. 24. On the other hand the respondent has himself stepped into the witness box as RW1. In addition, he has produced RW2 Kapur Singh Malik who was his election against in the aforesaid election, RW3 C.R. Rana who was the Returning Officer in the aforesaid conduct of the election and RW4 Subhash Chand who had also contested the aforesaid election as an independent candidate. 25. Besides the aforesaid oral evidence, both the parties have proved and produced on record number of documents which shall be noticed and discussed in detail in the letter portion of the judgment. 26. PW1 Shri Bernard John who was the Under Secretary in the office of the Election Commission of India has formally proved various documents relied upon by the petitioner which pertained to the record of the Election Commission. While answering a pointed question raised in the cross-examination on behalf of the respondent, the aforesaid witness has stated that the Election Commission had delegated its power to Shri K.R. Parsad, Secretary to the Commission and has further stated that the order Ex. PW1/E dated February 7, 2000 is an order of the higher authority communicated by Shri K.R. Parsad. 27. PW2 Ravi Shanker was posted as Election Kanungo in the District Election Office, Jind in the jurisdiction of which 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency falls. The aforesaid witness has also formally proved the various documents relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to the record of the District Election Office, Jind. 27. PW2 Ravi Shanker was posted as Election Kanungo in the District Election Office, Jind in the jurisdiction of which 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency falls. The aforesaid witness has also formally proved the various documents relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to the record of the District Election Office, Jind. Beside, this the aforesaid witness has categorically stated about the letter dated February 4, 2002 written by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda to the Chief Election Commissioner which was endorsed to their office and received in their office on February 4, 2000 at 11 p.m. 28. PW3 Shri Som Nath Luthra was working as Assistant Chief Election Officer, Haryana at the relevant time. In his statement he has categorically stated that the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana had received 90 Forms-B of all the 90 constituencies and these forms pertained to the candidates of 90 Constituencies. The aforesaid forms were received on February 3, 2000. The aforesaid witness has further stated that no authorisation form-B of Bachan Singh was received by the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana and that the Chief Electoral officer, Haryana communicated to the Returning Officer of 50-Safidon Constituency that form-B of Shri Kamal Sharma petitioner had been received and no form-B of Bachan Singh had been received. 29. In his cross-examination, the aforesaid witness has stated that they did not receive any form B on February 4, 2000 but had received Form B of Congress party on February 3, 2000. 30. PW4 Pannu Ram was a Clerk working with the office of Haryana Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, Chandigarh. In his statement the aforesaid witness beside proving formally certain documents, has stated that a list dated February 2, 2000 was sent to their office by Shri Oscar Fernandes, General Secretary, AICC, New Delhi. The aforesaid list was exhibited as Ex. PW4/C. The witness has further stated that apart from the aforesaid list no other list was received by their office. It has been further stated by the witness that when they received the list dated February 2, 2000, then they typed the names of the candidates on Form-B. He has also proved Ex. PW4/D which is a Form-B submitted by petitioner-Kamal Sharma along with his nomination papers submitted to the Returning Officer. The aforesaid Form-B has been signed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. PW4/D which is a Form-B submitted by petitioner-Kamal Sharma along with his nomination papers submitted to the Returning Officer. The aforesaid Form-B has been signed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The witness has gone on to state that they used to prepare four forms-B of each candidate out of which one was to be kept by them and the other was to be sent to the candidate. One of the forms was to be sent to the Returning Officer and the 4th one was to be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana. It has been categorically stated by the said witness that form-B of Bachan Singh had not been prepared in their office. All the Forms-B prepared in their office were typed, whereas Form-B of Bachan Singh was written in hand. While in cross-examination, the aforesaid witness stated that signature on Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh did appear to be that of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda but the witness has further gone on to the state that Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda had signed on blank form-B. He has stated that they had got signed blank Form-B numbering 425 from Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The aforesaid forms were, thereafter, filled by typing the names of the typist and after the aforesaid Forms-B were typed they were given to the candidates. It has also been admitted by the aforesaid witness that Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda did not check as to whom these forms were given. 31. PW5 Shri Bupinder Singh Hooda was President, Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee at the relevant time. He has deposed about the process followed in the selection of a candidate by the Central Committee of the Indian National Congress Party. He has proved the list Ex. PW4/C which was issued by the Central Election Committee of the Indian National Congress Party, appending the signatures of Shri Oscar Fernandes, the General Secretary of the AICC. He has categorically stated that he had not received any other list after the list Ex. PW4/C. He has deposed that the name of Bachan Singh was under consideration as a Congress candidate but the same was never finalised and Kamal Sharma was the party candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. Shri Hooda has stated that he did not issue any form-B to Bachan Singh and the name of Kamal Sharma was finalised as a party candidate. PW4/C. He has deposed that the name of Bachan Singh was under consideration as a Congress candidate but the same was never finalised and Kamal Sharma was the party candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. Shri Hooda has stated that he did not issue any form-B to Bachan Singh and the name of Kamal Sharma was finalised as a party candidate. But at about 3.30 p.m. on the last date of filing the nominations, he had received an information from Safidon that two nominations had been filed on behalf of the Congress party i.e. one by Kamal Sharma and the other being of Bachan Singh. On receipt of the aforesaid information he wrote a letter from his office to the Returning Officer of 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency that Kamal Sharma was their official candidate. The aforesaid letter Ex. PW4/J was sent by him through a special messenger to the Returning Officer. The witness has further deposed that on February 4, 2000 he received a telephonic call from the Returning Officer 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency asking him as to who was the official candidate of Congress party and that he told him (the Returning Officer) that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate. Thereupon the Returning Officer asked him to send an affidavit which he did. The aforesaid affidavit Ex. PW4/A was also sent by him through a special messenger. The witness had gone on to state that apart from the aforesaid affidavit a letter was sent by him to the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh. PW4/B was a letter sent to New Delhi and a copy thereof was endorsed to the Returning Officer, 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. In his cross-examination Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda has admitted that Ex. PW4/C comprises of 87 selected candidates while there were 90 constituencies of Haryana Assembly. Three names were still to be finalised. Out of the aforesaid 87 candidates only one name was changed. The one candidate who was changed was from 51-Faridabad Constituency. The witness has categorically stated that no list apart from Ex. PW4/C was ever released by the AICC but in this list also one candidate i.e. from 51-Faridabad Constituency was changed and three candidates had not been finalised. 32. In his further cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had signed four forms-B for one candidate each and the total forms-B which he had signed were about 400. PW4/C was ever released by the AICC but in this list also one candidate i.e. from 51-Faridabad Constituency was changed and three candidates had not been finalised. 32. In his further cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had signed four forms-B for one candidate each and the total forms-B which he had signed were about 400. Chuni Lal, the office Secretary typed the names and other particulars of Forms-B and after typing out the particulars on blank portion of Forms-B and before handing them to the candidates, the seal of the Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee was required to be put. With regard to Bachan Singh Arya contesting the election as a Congress candidate, it has been admitted by the aforesaid witness that after the withdrawal and rejection of nomination papers of Kamal Sharma, the aforesaid Bachan Singh was adopted as a Congress candidate from 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. However, the witness has also admitted that the document Ex. PW5/A which is Form-B in favour of Bachan Singh Arya also bore his signatures but he volunteered that he was merely admitting his signatures but not the contents of the form. 33. Shri Hooda while deposing as a witness has also formally proved the various documents relied upon by the parties. He has categorically stated that he had no knowledge about the other forms which had been issued to Bachan Singh and it was never issued by him. However, Shri Hooda has categorically denied the fact that Bachan Singh Arya was ever replaced in place of petitioner Kamal Sharma by the Central Selection Committee of Congress Party and that thereafter Form-B was issued to Bachan Singh Arya and the name of Kamal Sharma was rescinded. 34. Lastly the petitioner Kamal Sharma has chosen to appear as his own witness as PW6. While appearing as his own witness he has reiterated the stand taken by him in the pleadings contained in the petition and has also reiterated his stand that the Returning Officer had improperly rejected his nomination papers. 35. On the other hand, respondent-Ram Phal Kundu, the returned candidate has appeared as his own witness as RW1. In his statement, the respondent has reiterated the defence taken by him in the written statement. He has supported the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers of petitioner-Kamal Sharma. 35. On the other hand, respondent-Ram Phal Kundu, the returned candidate has appeared as his own witness as RW1. In his statement, the respondent has reiterated the defence taken by him in the written statement. He has supported the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers of petitioner-Kamal Sharma. It has been stated by him that Bachan Singh Arya submitted his authority letter to contest on the Congress party ticket and which also contained the cancellation of nomination of Kamal Sharma as a candidate of Congress party. In view of the aforesaid stand it has been maintained by the aforesaid witness in his statement that Bachan Singh Arya had actually contested the election as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress Party and Kamal Sharma who was the original candidate had subsequently changed and his name had been rescinded. 36. RW2 is Kapur Singh Malik who was the election agent of respondent-Ram Phal Kundu-returned candidate. The said witness has also supported the stand adopted by respondent-Ram Phal Kundu and has also gone on to state that in fact Bachan Singh was the official candidate of the Indian National Congress Party who had replaced original candidate Kamal Sharma when the name of the original candidate had been rescinded. The said witness has also supported the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers of Kamal Sharma. 37. However, in his cross-examination the said witness has admitted that at the time of rescrutiny on February 8, 2000 the contents of the letter and the affidavit of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda were read in open court and both the papers were shown to Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda who had stated that both the said papers bore his signatures. He has also admitted that no statement of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda was recorded by the Returning Officer. A very important fact which has also been admitted by the said witness during his cross-examination is that Bhupinder Singh Hooda at the time of rescrutiny had told the Returning Officer that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress party. 38. RW3 is Shri C.R. Rana who was the Returning Officer for the conduct of the election to the 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency which has been called in question in the present petition. 38. RW3 is Shri C.R. Rana who was the Returning Officer for the conduct of the election to the 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency which has been called in question in the present petition. In his statement the said witness has submitted that on February 4, 2000 at the time of scrutiny of papers a person from the office of Haryana Pradesh Congress Party, Chandigarh had come with a letter which was delivered to the Returning Officer. In the aforesaid letter it was stated that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate and that Kamal Sharma had also given in writing that the letter submitted by Bachan Singh Arya did not bear the seal of the Congress party. The said witness has also admitted that he verified the contents of that letter from Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda on the telephone who told him that the aforesaid letter had been issued by him. The Returning Officer had further asked him to give as to affidavit whether Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh Arya bore his signature or had not been issued him. The witness had stated that Shri Hooda agreed to send such an affidavit. It has been further stated by this witness that on February 4, 2002 at 11.00 a.m. Kamal Sharma came to his house and submitted the affidavit of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda along with a letter written by Shri Hooda to the Election Commission of India. However, it is maintained by this witness that Bhupinder Singh Hooda did not submit the affidavit to the effect as to whether he denied the signature on Form-B of Bachan Singh Arya and the affidavit which he had submitted was to the same effect as was the letter which he had received from Shri Hooda. The witness has also admitted that he did not ever point out to Kamal Sharma or Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda that the affidavit submitted by Shri Hooda was not on the lines asked for by him. 39. The Returning Officer Shri C.R. Rana has also admitted the receipt of the directions dated February 7, 2000 from the Election Commission of India and with regard to the factum of rescrutiny conducted by him on February 8, 2000. He has admitted that at the time of rescrutiny he showed both the forms A and B submitted by petitioner Kamal Sharma and Bachan Singh Arya to Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. He has admitted that at the time of rescrutiny he showed both the forms A and B submitted by petitioner Kamal Sharma and Bachan Singh Arya to Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. Shri Hooda recognised his signatures on both these forms but stated that the officials candidate of the Congress was Kamal Sharma. Shri Rana has further stated that he asked Shri Hooda as to whether Form-B of Bachan Singh Arya was issued by him or not whereupon Shri Hooda said that he had issued Form-B to Shri Bachan Singh Arya as his name was under consideration but further stated that Form-B of Bachan Singh Arya was given to some person with a direction to that person that it be given to Bachan Singh Arya when Shri Hooda confirmed on the telephone and that the said directions to release the said form were never issued by him (Shri Hooda). It is also admitted that Kamal Sharma came to his house and submitted his affidavit. 40. In his cross-examination Shri C.R. Rana has admitted that at the time of scrutiny on February 4, 2000 Bachan Singh Arya had raised an objection with regard to the letter Ex. PW2/J that the same was forged and after the said objection he asked Kamal Sharma as to whether the genuineness of the letter could be verified from Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. Upon this Kamal Sharma gave him the mobile number of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda and thereupon he (C.R. Rana) talked to Bhupinder Singh Hooda on the telephone. Shri Hooda confirmed that the letter Ex. PW2/J had been sent by him and, therefore, the objection taken by the Bachan Singh Arya with regard to the forgery was not correct. However, the witness has further stated that since form-B submitted by Bachan Singh Arya had an endorsement on it that the candidature of Kamal Sharma as a Congress party candidate had been rescinded, therefore, he asked Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda if he could furnish an affidavit to the effect that Form-B issued in favour of Bachan Singh Arya did not bear his signatures and had not been issued by him. The witness has further admitted that the affidavit PW4/A was submitted to him on the next day and the contents of the aforesaid affidavit were in support of letter dated February 3, 2000. The witness has further admitted that the affidavit PW4/A was submitted to him on the next day and the contents of the aforesaid affidavit were in support of letter dated February 3, 2000. However, Shri C.R. Rana has further stated that said affidavit was not on the lines on which he had asked for. To a pointed question by the court that in his order dated February 5, 2000 he had not rejected the affidavit dated February 4, 2000 furnished by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda on the ground that the affidavit was not furnished by him as directed, the witness stated that in the said order he had mentioned that Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda had not denied that Form-B of Bachan Singh Arya did not bear his signatures and he had merely repeated the contents of the letter that was submitted on February 4, 2000. Shri C.R. Rana RW3 has further admitted that he had addressed the letter Ex. PW2/I to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, Chandigarh, seeking a clarification and that he had received a reply from the Central Electoral Officer, Haryana on February 4, 2000 as Ex. RW3/7. In the aforesaid reply Ex. RW3/7 the Chief Electoral Officer had replied that Forms A and B of Kamal Sharma had been received in their office before 3.00 p.m. on February 3, 2000 and that Forms A and B of Bachan Singh Arya had not been received before 3.00 p.m. on February 3, 2000. However, the witness stated that he had never asked for the aforesaid clarification from the Chief Electoral Officer. The witness has further admitted that at the time of scrutiny on February 4, 2000 Kamal Sharma had pointed out that Form-B of Bachan Singh Arya was not bearing the seal of Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee but he further stated that he did not ask Shri Bachan Singh Arya to rectify this anomaly as there was very little time. 41. The last witness produced by the respondent is RW4 Subhash Chand who had also contested the election as an independent candidate from 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency in the election held in February, 2000. The said witness has stated that there were about 7/8 candidates. Whereas the returned candidate Ram Phal Kundu was an official candidate of INLD, Bachan Singh Arya was official candidate of Congress, Surat Singh was of B.S.P. and Vijender Singh Yogi was of HVP. The said witness has stated that there were about 7/8 candidates. Whereas the returned candidate Ram Phal Kundu was an official candidate of INLD, Bachan Singh Arya was official candidate of Congress, Surat Singh was of B.S.P. and Vijender Singh Yogi was of HVP. There were few independent candidates also. This witness has also deposed about the proceedings conducted by the Returning Officer on February 4, 2000 at the time of scrutiny. 42. In the back drop of the aforesaid oral evidence and the documents produced by both the parties, their respective counsel namely Shri R.L. Batta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri M.L. Saggar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Shri Ram Phal Kundu, the returned candidate, have made their respective submissions. 43. Before noticing to the respective submissions raised on behalf of the parties to the petition, it may be useful to notice the various provisions of the Act and the Symbols Order which may be relevant and necessary for the purpose of controversy in the present petition. Section 30. Appointment of dates for nomination, etc. - As soon as the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members is issued, the Election Commission shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint - (a) the last date for making nominations, which shall be the seventh day after the date of publication of the first mentioned notification or, if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (b) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, which shall be the day immediately following the last date for making nominations or, if that day is public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public day; (c) the last date for the withdrawal of candidature, which shall be the second day after the date for the scrutiny of nominations or, if that day is a public holiday, the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday; (d) the date or dates on which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken which or the first of which shall be a date not earlier than the fourteenth day after the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures; and (e) the date before which the election shall be completed. Section 33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Section 33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. - (1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of Section 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 section 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 proposers 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. Section 36. Scrutiny of nominations. - (1) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under section 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 section 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 inquiry, 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 sections 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 section 33 or section 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-section (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 Section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by 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) For the purposes of this section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). (8) Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a list of validly nominated candidates, that is to say, candidates whose nominations have been found valid, and affix it to his notice board. Paragraphs 13 and 13-A of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 provide as under : Para 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; (aa) the candidate is a member of that political party and his name is borne on the roll of members of the party; (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 Form 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 been authorised by the party to send such notice; (d) the name and specimen signature of such authorised person are communicated by the party, in Form A, to the Returning Officer of the constituency and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State or Union Territory concerned, not later than 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations; (e) Forms A and B are signed, in ink only, by the said office-bearer or person authorised by the party : Provided that no facsimile signature by means or rubber stamp, etc., of any such office-bearer or authorised person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. Para 13A. Para 13A. Substitution of a candidate by a political party - For the removal of any doubt, it is hereby clarified that a political party which has given a notice in Form B under paragraph 13 in favour of a candidate may rescind that notice and may give a revised notice in Form B in favour of another candidate for the constituency : Provided that the revised notice in Form B, clearly indicating therein that the earlier notice in Form B has been rescinded, reaches the Returning Officer of the constituency, not later than 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations, and the said revised notice in Form B is signed by the authorised person referred to in clause (d) of paragraph 13 : Provided further that in case more than one notice in Form B is received by the Returning Officer in respect of two or more candidates, and the political party fails to indicate in such notices in Form B that the earlier notice or notices in Form B, has or have been rescinded, the Returning Officer shall accept the notice in Form B in respect of the candidate whose nomination paper was first delivered to him, and the remaining candidate or candidates in respect of whom also notice or notices in Form B has or have been received by the him, shall not be treated as candidates set up by such political party. 44. Shri R.L. Batta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Returning Officer dated February 8, 2000 Ex. PW2/H whereby the nomination papers of petitioner Kamal Sharma were rejected, was wholly improper and contrary to the Act, and the Symbols Order. It has been submitted that in fact the Returning Officer had not only acted contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Symbols Order but had also acted contrary to the directions of the Election Commission of India issued on February 7, 2000 vide Ex. PW1/E whereby the petition filed by petitioner Kamal Sharma against the earlier order of the Returning Officer dated February 5, 2000 Ex. PW2/A was accepted. Shri Batta has further submitted that not only this the Returning Officer while passing the aforesaid order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner has also ignored the letter dated February 3, 2000 Ex. PW1/E whereby the petition filed by petitioner Kamal Sharma against the earlier order of the Returning Officer dated February 5, 2000 Ex. PW2/A was accepted. Shri Batta has further submitted that not only this the Returning Officer while passing the aforesaid order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner has also ignored the letter dated February 3, 2000 Ex. PW2/J written by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda to the Returning Officer as well as Shri Hoodas affidavit Ex. PW4/A dated February 4, 2000. The aforesaid letter was duly supported by Shri Hooda while having a telephonic conversation with the Returning Officer on February 4, 2000, as admitted by the Returning Officer himself. 45. It has further been maintained by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that not only this, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the President of the Congress Party in Haryana had appeared in person before the Returning Officer on February 8, 2000 at the time of rescrutiny and had not only reiterated the stand taken by him in the aforesaid letter as well as the affidavit but had categorically clarified before the Returning Officer that it was petitioner Kamal Sharma alone who was the authorised and sponsored candidate of the Congress Party. 46. Shri R.L. Batta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that as per Paras 13 and 13-A of the Symbols Order, an information by the political party in writing in Form-B must reach the Returning Officer of the Constituency on the last date of the nomination and such notice must be signed by the authorised person whose name has been communicated by the President, Secretary or such other office-bearer of the party who had been nominated by the party in Form-A. On that basis Shri Batta has maintained that for a valid nomination with regard to a candidate set up by a political party, it was necessary that Forms A & B with regard to the aforesaid candidate were received simultaneously by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State and the Returning Officer of the constituency not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making nomination. Shri Batta has submitted that since the evidence on the record showed that Form-A of Bachan Singh was not sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana either by the aforesaid candidate or by the Congress Party and even Form-B of the aforesaid Bachan Singh had been merely handed over to the Returning Officer of 50- Safidon Assembly Constituency, therefore, there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Symbols Order and because of the aforesaid fact it could not be taken that there was any rescission of the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh Arya to the Returning Officer did not even contain the seal of the Congress Party whereas there was a specific place earmarked in the aforesaid form for putting the seal of a party. 47. Referring to the evidence on the record Shri R.L. Batta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact petitioner Kamal Sharma was the only candidate whose name had been finalised by the Congress Party for sponsoring him as an official candidate for the 50- Safidon Assembly Constituency and at no stage the said decision was ever reversed or modified by the Congress Party and as such there was no occasion for Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the authorised person of the party in the State of Haryana to rescind the nomination of the petitioner and to issue a fresh nomination in favour of Bachan Singh. 48. The learned counsel has submitted that in fact at no stage the party ever chose to nominate Bachan Singh as the official candidate of the Congress Party. Shri Batta has relied upon the statement made by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda as PW5, to submit that Shri Hooda had categorically submitted while appearing as a witness that it was the petitioner alone who was the official nominee of the Congress Party for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and although the name of Bachan Singh was also under consideration at some stage for his nomination for the aforesaid Constituency but the same was never finalised. It was further been pointed out by the learned counsel that Shri Hooda has further stated that he had never issued Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh to the Returning Officer nor had ever authorised anybody to issue the same. It was further been pointed out by the learned counsel that Shri Hooda has further stated that he had never issued Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh to the Returning Officer nor had ever authorised anybody to issue the same. On that basis the learned counsel has vehemently argued that since the nomination papers of the petitioner were wrongly and improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, therefore, the election of the respondent-returned candidate-Ram Phal Kundu was liable to be declared void under the provisions of section 100(1)(c) of the Act. 49. In support of his contention Shri Batta, the learned senior counsel has referred to the various provisions of the Act, Symbols Order and the guide- lines issued by the Election Commission of India to the Returning Officers and has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar, 1992(2) Supreme Court Cases 489 and M/s. Krishna Mohini v. Mohinder Nath Sofat, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 317. A further reliance has also been placed on the case of F.A. Sappa Etc. Etc. v. Singora and others etc. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1557. 50. On the other hand Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-returned candidate Ram Phal Kundu has controverted all the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Sukhbir Singh has defended the impugned order dated February 8, 2000 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of petitioner Kamal Sharma. 51. Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel has submitted that after the amendment of the Symbols Order vide amendment dated May 20, 1999 whereby provisions of Para 13 were amended and a new Para 13-A was inserted, it was not required that Form-B of a candidate should be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State and, therefore, the fact that Bachan Singh or the Congress Party had not sent his Form-B to the Chief Electoral Officer was of no consequence. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Form-A as prescribed in the Symbols Order was a general nomination of an authorised person and since Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda who was the President of the Congress Party in the State of Haryana and who had been nominated by the Central Office of the party to be an authorised person to sign Form-B in respect of various candidates and an intimation in this regard had already been sent in Form-A submitted with the nomination papers of petitioner Kamal Sharma simultaneously to the Chief Electoral Officer as well as the Returning Officer, therefore, no Form-A separately was required to be sent with the revised nomination of Bachan Singh. With regard to the omission of the seal of the Congress Party on the revised Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh, the learned counsel has maintained that in fact the aforesaid omission was a mere irregularity and there was no mandatory provision under which the seal was required to be put. 52. Shri Sukhbir Singh has further submitted that only one candidate could be nominated by a recognized political party and as such nominated candidate was required to file his nomination papers along with Forms A & B to the Returning Officer prior to 3.00 p.m. on the last date for filing the nomination papers. The learned counsel has maintained that under any circumstances, the change of a candidate subsequent to the date of closure of the nomination papers was not permitted to a political party. On that basis of the learned counsel has argued that since the nomination of petitioner Kamal Sharma had been subsequently rescinded by the Congress Party who had instead nominated Bachan Singh in his place and aforesaid Bachan Singh had filed the revised nomination papers at 2.20 p.m. on February 3, 2000 wherein the candidature of Kamal Sharma has been rescinded, therefore, it was not open to the Congress Party subsequently to revise its aforesaid decision and redecide in favour of the petitioner Kamal Sharma for adopting him as its candidate. Shri Sukhbir Singh has further submitted that since the letter Ex. PW2/J dated February 3, 2000 written by Shri Hooda to the Returning Officer as well as his affidavit Ex. Shri Sukhbir Singh has further submitted that since the letter Ex. PW2/J dated February 3, 2000 written by Shri Hooda to the Returning Officer as well as his affidavit Ex. PW4/A dated February 4, 2000 were received by the Returning Officer after the time fixed for filing of the nomination papers, therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration at all by the Returning Officer for ignoring the nomination papers of Bachan Singh for treating Kamal Sharma petitioner as the officials candidate. 53. Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent has also highlighted the fact that aforesaid Bachan Singh was adopted as an official candidate by the Congress Party and had ultimately contested the election on the symbol of the Congress Party against the returned candidate. After the elections, he was defeated since the returned candidate Ram Phal Kundu has secured more votes. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the learned counsel has maintained that the very fact that aforesaid Bachan Singh was the officials candidate of the Congress party in the said elections shows that the nomination papers filed by him and Forms A and B submitted by him to the Returning officer on February 3, 2000 were the duly authorised and issued papers. 54. In support of his submissions Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent have heavily relied upon the judgments rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Jugal Kishore and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 2002 Rajasthan 292 and also Bhogendra Jha v. Manoj Kumar Jha, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2099 to contend that the enquiry conducted by the Returning Officer for scrutiny of the nomination papers was only a summary enquiry and no detailed facts were required to be gone into by the Returning Officer, at that stage. Shri Sukhbir Singh has further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment in Rakesh Kumars case (supra) and Ms. Krishna Mohinis case (supra) was wholly misplaced inasmuch as the aforesaid cases related to the period prior to the amendment of Symbols Order and, therefore, after the amendment in the Symbols Order and insertion of Para 13-A there was a complete change in law. 55. Krishna Mohinis case (supra) was wholly misplaced inasmuch as the aforesaid cases related to the period prior to the amendment of Symbols Order and, therefore, after the amendment in the Symbols Order and insertion of Para 13-A there was a complete change in law. 55. I have given my conscious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and with the able assistance of their learned counsel, I have also gone through the record of the case in detail. 56. The first and foremost question which needs to be examined is as to whether the provisions of the Act and the Symbols Order required the submission of Forms A and B simultaneously to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State as well as the concerned Returning Officer of the Constituency or not. It is apparent from the perusal of section 33 of the Act (reproduced above) that on or before the date appointed under clause (a) read with Para 13, each candidate shall either in person or through his proposer, on the dates so notified in the calender for holding the election, deliver to the Returning Officer at the place specified in this behalf, a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by an elector of the constituency. However, in the case of a candidate set up by a recognised political party it was not required that the aforesaid nomination paper be subscribed by 10 proposers. Under the provisions of Para 13 of the Symbols Order, along with the nomination papers a notice by the political party in writing in Form-B was required to be delivered to the Returning Officer of the Constituency. The said notice in Form-B was required to be signed by the President, Secretary or by any authorised person of the party who had been authorised to send such notice. Additionally the name and specimen signatures of such authorised persons are required to be communicated by the party in Form-A 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 nomination. Additionally the name and specimen signatures of such authorised persons are required to be communicated by the party in Form-A 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 nomination. A perusal of the provisions of Para 13-A, inserted vide notification dated May 20, 1999 in the Symbols Order shows that a political party which had given a notice in Form-B earlier, under Para 13 in favour of a candidate was authorised to rescind that notice and could give a revised Form B in favour of another candidate for the Constituency. However, in the revised notice in Form-B it was required to clearly indicate that the earlier notice in Form-B had been rescinded. The revised notice itself was required to reach the Returning Officer of the Constituency not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making nominations. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of Para 13 and Para 13-A of the Symbols Order, it is apparent that a recognized political party through newly added Para 13-A had been given a specific right to revise the earlier original nomination in favour of another candidate and thereby substitute its choice but such revised candidate, while filing his nomination papers in the revised Form-B, was also required to adhere to the various requirements provided in para-13 for filing the nomination papers by a candidate set up by a political party. It is, thus, apparent that even a revised candidate who had replaced the original choice of the party, through a notice of rescinding the original candidate was still required to adhere to the various requirements provided in Clauses (a) to (e) of Para 13. It is, thus, apparent that even a revised candidate who had replaced the original choice of the party, through a notice of rescinding the original candidate was still required to adhere to the various requirements provided in Clauses (a) to (e) of Para 13. Such a revised candidate was also required to duly give a declaration as required under the clause of para 13; a notice by the political party in writing in Form-B was required to be submitted before 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making nomination; the said notice in Form-B was required to be signed by the authorised person and for such nomination as per clause (d) also the name and specimen signatures of such authorised person were required to be communicated by the party in Form-A 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. (emphasis supplied). 57. Under these circumstances it could be safely inferred that for each nominated/sponsored candidate set up by a political party, the nomination papers were required to be submitted along with an independent Form A and independent Form B duly signed by the authorised person and issued by the Party. Form A was additionally required to be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. Therefore, it must follow that in a situation where Form A with regard to a particular sponsored/duly nominated candidate by a political party has failed to adhere to any one of the requirements of the aforesaid Paras 13 or 13-A of the Symbols Order, as the case may be, then such a nomination could not be taken to be legal and valid under the provisions of law. 58. It is not disputed that although while filing the nomination papers by Bachan Singh, he had submitted Form A and Form B along with the aforesaid nomination papers before the Returning Officer, however, no form A in respect of the candidature of Bachan Singh was submitted by him to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana. Thus it is apparent that the nomination papers of Bachan Singh along with Form-B submitted by him through which the candidature of Kamal Sharma was stated to have been rescinded could not be treated to be a valid submission of nomination papers. Thus it is apparent that the nomination papers of Bachan Singh along with Form-B submitted by him through which the candidature of Kamal Sharma was stated to have been rescinded could not be treated to be a valid submission of nomination papers. Under these circumstances, it could not be taken that the same would have the effect of rescinding the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma. 59. The next question which necessarily arises for determination is as to whether it could be taken that the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma had ever been rescinded by the Congress Party and whether it could be taken that on the filing of the aforesaid revised notice in Form-B by Bachan Singh, the sponsorship/nomination of petitioner Kamal Sharma stood rescinded. 60. For the determination of the aforesaid question reference may have to be made to the statements of PW2 Ravi Shanker, PW3 Som Nath Luthra and PW4 Punnu Ram and PW5 Bhupinder Singh Hooda. 61. PW2 Ravi Shanker was working as Election Kanungo in the office of the District Election Officer, Jind. He has proved a copy of the letter dated February 4, 2000 written by Bhupinder Singh Hooda to the Chief Election Commissioner, which was endorsed to their office and was received in their office at 11.00 p.m. on February 4, 2000. Som Nath Luthra who has appeared as PW3 was the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana at the relevant time. In his statement he has stated that the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana had received Form-B with regard to 90 Constituencies. He has categorically stated that no authorisation Form-B with regard to Bachan Singh Arya was ever received by the Chief Electoral Officer for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. However, Form-B of Kamal Sharma had been received by the State office. 62. PW4 Punnu Ram was an official of the office of Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee, Chandigarh. While appearing as PW4 he has stated that a list dated February 4, 2000 was sent to their office by Shri Oscar Fernandes, General Secretary of the All India Congress Party. The said list has been proved on record as Ex. PW4/C. In the aforesaid list the name of the petitioner Kamal Sharma appears as the selected candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. The said witness has stated that they prepared a set of four forms B for each candidate. The said list has been proved on record as Ex. PW4/C. In the aforesaid list the name of the petitioner Kamal Sharma appears as the selected candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. The said witness has stated that they prepared a set of four forms B for each candidate. Whereas one copy was kept by themselves and one was sent to the candidate and one each was sent to the concerned Returning officer of the Constituency and to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana. With regard to the Form-B of Bachan Singh, the witness has been categorical that the same had not been prepared in his office nor was ever typed by them. In fact the aforesaid Forms-B filled by them were typed and were always stamped with the seal of the party. The witness has further stated that Bhupinder Singh Hooda had signed various blank Forms-B which were to be used by the party on his authorisation. 63. Now adverting to the statement of PW5 Bhupinder Singh Hooda, it emerges that besides formally proving the list of the selected candidates of Ex. PW4/C, he has categorically stated that he had not received any other list after the aforesaid list from the Headquarters of the party. It has further been stated that even the name of Bachan Singh was under consideration as a party candidate but was never finalised and it was petitioner-Kamal Sharma who was the party candidate for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. The witness has further maintained that when he received the information on February 3, 2000 i.e. on the date of nominations that another person had filed nomination along with the petitioner for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency, then he immediately sent a letter Ex. PW2/J on that date itself and sent the same to the Returning Officer through a special messenger. In the said letter it was specifically mentioned by him that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate. The witness has further admitted that he received a telephonic call on February 4, 2000 from the Returning Officer and he told him also that petitioner Kamal Sharma was the official candidate. The Returning Officer asked him to send an affidavit in this regard and accordingly he sent the affidavit Ex. PW4/A. The witness has candidly admitted that Form-B Ex. PW5/A which was submitted by Bachan Singh bore his signatures. The Returning Officer asked him to send an affidavit in this regard and accordingly he sent the affidavit Ex. PW4/A. The witness has candidly admitted that Form-B Ex. PW5/A which was submitted by Bachan Singh bore his signatures. However, the witness was categorical in stating that he only admitted his signatures but not the contents of the forms. The witness has further stated that he had signed about 400 forms and had asked the Office Secretary to type the names and other particulars on Form-B and put the seal of the party. He has stated that this had to be done because he was very busy in those days and could not remain in the office all the time. He has categorically stated that he did not issue any Form-B to Bachan Singh. 64. A perusal of the entire statement of Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda shows that he had been very categorical in his stand that it was the petitioner Kamal Sharma alone who had been, from the very beginning, the official candidate of the Congress Party and it was he alone who had been authorised to file his nomination papers as a nominee of the Congress party. The witness has been further categorical that it was in the case of the petitioner alone that Forms A and B were duly issued and submitted before the Returning Officer as well as the Chief Electoral Officer. It was further been specifically stated by the witness that, at no stage, Bachan Singh was ever nominated as the official candidate of the Congress Party and, at no stage, the candidature of petitioner Kamal Sharma had been rescinded in favour of Bachan Singh. The witness has also further stated that at no stage Form-B of Bachan Singh was ever issued by him or on his behalf. 65. From the perusal of the various documents, namely, the letter Ex. PW2/J dated February 3, 2000 written by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda to the Returning Officer, his affidavit dated February 4, 2000 Ex. PW4/A, submitted to the Returning Officer, the letter dated February 4, 2000, Ex. 65. From the perusal of the various documents, namely, the letter Ex. PW2/J dated February 3, 2000 written by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda to the Returning Officer, his affidavit dated February 4, 2000 Ex. PW4/A, submitted to the Returning Officer, the letter dated February 4, 2000, Ex. PW4/B written by Shri Hooda to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, his statement before the Returning officer, when he appeared before him on February 8, 2000 at the time of rescrutiny, leave no manner of doubt that the unequivocal stand adopted by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda all through has been that it was the petitioner Kamal Sharma who was originally nominated candidate of the Congress party for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency and at no stage his candidature was ever rescinded or revised in favour of Bachan Singh. 66. Besides the categorical stand adopted by the said witness certain other factors may be noticed which point to the same conclusion i.e. that the petitioner Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress Party at the time of filing of the nomination papers on February 3, 2000 and continued as such and his name was never rescinded by the party at any stage. The said factors may be noticed as follows : 67. Although as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment by me, after the amendment of the Symbols Order in May, 1999 and insertion of Para 13-A, it was not the requirement of law that Form-B of a candidate should also be simultaneously submitted before the Chief Electoral Officer, however, a perusal of Form-B submitted by petitioner Kamal Sharma to the Returning Officer on February 3, 2000, Ex. PW4/D and that of Ex. PW5/A which is form-B submitted by Bachan Singh to the Returning officer shows that the said form contained a printed endorsement as follows : "Copy to the Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Haryana, Sector-17, Chandigarh." 68. It was in pursuance to the aforesaid endorsement and probably as a matter of practice only that though the law had been amended and it was not required to submit the aforesaid Form-B to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State but the same continued to be submitted simultaneously to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State as well. Accordingly, Form-B pertaining to petitioner Kamal Sharma was also simultaneously submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana along with the Returning Officer. Accordingly, Form-B pertaining to petitioner Kamal Sharma was also simultaneously submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana along with the Returning Officer. However, in the case of aforesaid Bachan Singh, no such Form-B was submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer. As noticed by me earlier also, this may not be the requirement of law but all the same it is one circumstance which goes a along way to show that in fact Form-B issued in favour of Bachan Singh was never issued validly by the Congress Party office or its authorised person Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. This inference of mine finds support from the statement of PW3 Som Nath Luthra, Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana when he has stated that their office had received Form-B with regard to all the 90 constituencies in the State of Haryana and that whereas Form-B of petitioner Kamal Sharma had been received, Form-B of Bachan Singh had not been received. 69. The next factor to be taken into consideration is that the Election Commission of India had passed an order dated February 7, 2000 Ex. PW2/G. The earlier order dated February 5, 2000 Ex. PW2/E passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Returning Officer for fresh scrutiny. It was directed by the Election Commission of India that at the time of fresh scrutiny, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar (supra) shall be taken into consideration and also Bhupinder Singh Hooda be summoned and an enquiry be made from him as to find out as to who was the authorised candidate of the Party. Accordingly, when the matter was taken up for rescrutiny on February 8, 2000, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda was asked to be present. He was actually present. He made a statement before the Returning Officer. He categorically dis-owned the issuance of Form-B by him in favour of Bachan Singh. He specifically owned that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress Party. He even explained the fact that although Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh contained his signatures but the same was never validly issued by his office or by the Party. He categorically dis-owned the issuance of Form-B by him in favour of Bachan Singh. He specifically owned that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress Party. He even explained the fact that although Form-B submitted by Bachan Singh contained his signatures but the same was never validly issued by his office or by the Party. In my view after the categorical stand adopted by Shri Hooda before the Returning Officer and in view of the explicit directions issued by the Election Commission of India vide order dated E.PW2/G, the Returning Officer had really no option but to accept the statement of Shri Hooda and treat the petitioner as the official candidate of the Congress Party. Instead he chose to brush aside the said statement and rather acted contrary to the said statement and held that Bachan Singh was the official candidate who had validly replaced petitioner Kamal Sharma through a revised Form-B. It is strange that when very issuance of aforesaid Form-B was disowned by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, then the Returning Office by any stretch of imagination could not have accepted the same. It was not a case where an effort was made by the party to change its candidate at a subsequent stage. 70. In the very first instance on February 3, 2000 itself when Bachan Singh filed his nomination papers Shri Hooda had written a letter Ex. PW2/J to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer had himself spoken to Shri Hooda on the telephone on the said date itself. Even on telephone Shri Hooda had maintained that petitioner Kamal Sharma was the official nominee. The Returning Officer asked him to file an affidavit. The affidavit was filed by Shri Hooda. Under these circumstances, the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner taking the same to have been validly rescinded is totally improper and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 71. Another circumstance which militates against the issuance of the valid Form-B in favour of Bachan Singh Arya is non-sealing of the same with the seal of the Congress Party. It is submitted by Shri Sukhbir Singh that it was a mere irregularity and was not a defect of any substantial nature. The submission is correct. In ordinary circumstances mere non-sealing of the form could be ignored. It is submitted by Shri Sukhbir Singh that it was a mere irregularity and was not a defect of any substantial nature. The submission is correct. In ordinary circumstances mere non-sealing of the form could be ignored. However, because of the controversy as to whether the said Form-B was validly issued by the party or its authorised nominee, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda or not, the said fact assumes a great significance. Punnu Ram PW4 as well as Bhupinder Singh Hooda PW5 have categorically stated that all the Forms-B which were duly issued by the Party Office were typed and duly sealed by the party seal. Form-B of the petitioner Kamal Sharma is also typed and sealed with the partys seal. Even another form pertaining to 51- Faridabad Assembly Constituency Ex. PW4/F is typed and duly sealed. Through the said form the candidature of the original nominee in Faridabad Constituency was rescinded and changed. Thus, the non-sealing of the Form-B of the Bachan Singh also shows that the same was never issued by the party and the same had been submitted by Bachan Singh without any authority of the party or its authorised person Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda. 72. A perusal of the order dated February 8, 2000 Ex. PW2/H passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner would show that he had merely observed that the affidavit filed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda was not on the lines asked by him. However, while appearing as a witness Shri C.R. Rana, the Returning Officer RW3 has categorically admitted that he had never asked the petitioner Kamal Sharma or Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda with regard to the said defect in the affidavit. It has further been admitted by Shri C.R. Rana that on February 4, 2000, even at the time of scrutiny, a person from the Congress party office had appeared with a letter which was delivered to the Returning Officer and in that letter it was stated that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress Party. He has further admitted that he had verified the authorisation of the aforesaid letter through Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda on telephone, who had told him that the aforesaid letter was issued by him and that Kamal Sharma, the petitioner, was the official candidate of the party. He has further admitted that he had verified the authorisation of the aforesaid letter through Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda on telephone, who had told him that the aforesaid letter was issued by him and that Kamal Sharma, the petitioner, was the official candidate of the party. Even RW2 Kapoor Singh Malik who had worked as a election agent of Returned candidate-Ram Phal Kundu in his cross-examination has admitted that at the time of rescrutiny, Bhupinder Singh Hooda had told the Returning Officer that Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress. 73. In the light of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence on the record, it is apparent and clear that the petitioner Kamal Sharma was the official candidate of the Congress party and, at no stage, his nomination papers had ever been rescinded by the said party and, at no stage, there was any substituted candidate, namely, Bachan Singh Arya, ever nominated to replace him. 74. At this stage, it may be advantageous to refer to certain observations made by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar (supra) : "18. The Election Commission of India has issued instructions in exercise of its statutory functions. Those instructions are contained in the Handbook for Returning Officers. Chapter VI of the Handbook deals with scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officer. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has referred to various provisions of the instructions and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Returning Officer did not follow those instructions while scrutinising the nomination papers, thereby adopting a wrong procedure. We agree with the view of the High Court in that behalf. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Mishra that the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 33(1), as amended, without any further enquiry. The argument overlooks the proviso to Section 36(5) of the Act as well as the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India (supra). Mishra that the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 33(1), as amended, without any further enquiry. The argument overlooks the proviso to Section 36(5) of the Act as well as the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India (supra). The legislature in its supreme wisdom did not amend the proviso to Section 36(5) of the Act after Section 33(1) was amended in 1996, thereby clearly exhibiting its intention that the said proviso was required to be given its full effect, more particularly because the duty which a Returning Officer performs while scrutinising the nomination papers is quasi-judicial in character, even after Section 33(1) had been amended." It was further observed by the Apex Court in the said case that : "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 failure to exercise his jurisdiction to postpone the decision as to the validity of the nomination paper of the respondent even after the respondent had sought time to meet the objection indeed rendered the rejection of the nomination paper of the respondent as both improper and illegal. The Returning Officer is not expected to reject a nomination paper without giving an opportunity to the candidate or his representative 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 and no one present on behalf of the other candidates had opposed the claim made by the respondent. Having raised the objection suo motu, the request of the respondent who was present and sought time in writing to seek clarification from the BJP as to who was its official candidate, the Returning Officer in all fairness was obliged to grant time to the respondent as prayed for by him and postpone the scrutiny to the next day but he ought not to have rejected his nomination paper in hot haste. The Returning Officer, obviously, failed to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 36(5) of the Act properly and thereby fell in a grave error in rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent." (emphasis supplied). 75. The Returning Officer, obviously, failed to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 36(5) of the Act properly and thereby fell in a grave error in rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent." (emphasis supplied). 75. Adverting to the authority in Jugal Kishores case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, I have gone through the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Honble Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in minute details. From a perusal thereof, I find that the facts and circumstances of that case were totally different. In the aforesaid case, the candidature of the original candidate was sought to be treated as cancelled subsequently by issuing a communication on the date of the scrutiny i.e. after closure of the time for filing of nomination papers. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that once the time for issuing the revised Form-B had expired, then subsequently through a letter written to the Returning Officer the name could not be changed nor original nomination cancelled. It is apparent that the said preposition does not arise in the present case and the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. 76. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that a duty and obligation was cast upon the Returning Officer to conduct the scrunity of the nomination papers filed before him up to the last date of nomination. When there were two nomination papers filed before him on behalf of the Congress party, then it was his duty to find out as to which one of the two candidates claiming to the set up by the Congress Party was the candidate of the Party. The said function was apparently a quasi judicial function and once the rescrutiny was ordered by the Election Commission of India and the same was conducted in the presence of the various candidates and in the presence of the authorised person of the Congress party, namely, Shri Bhupinder Singh Hooda, then the Returning Officer was expected to decide the matter keeping in view the various facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on the record and the statement made by Shri Hooda. Apparently he has not done so. In this view of the matter the order dated February 8, 2000 Ex. Apparently he has not done so. In this view of the matter the order dated February 8, 2000 Ex. PW2/H passed by him, whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected, is clearly unsustainable in law and improper under the circumstances of the case. 77. To be fair to Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent, one more argument raised by him needs to be noticed. The learned counsel has submitted that the letter dated February 3, 2000 Ex. PW2/J, written by Shri Hooda, the affidavit dated February 4, 2000, Ex. PW4/A of Shri Hooda and letter dated February 4, 2000 Ex. PW4/B, written by Shri Hooda to the Chief Election Commissioner of India could not have been taken into consideration by the Returning Officer, at the time of scrutiny or re-scrutiny, since all these documents were after the last date of closure of nomination i.e. February 3, 2000. On that basis it is submitted by the learned counsel that if the said documents were to be ruled out then no fault could be found with the order dated February 8, 2000 passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination papers of petitioner Kamal Sharma. 78. I am afraid that while making the said submission, the learned counsel has obviously not adverted to the provisions of Section 36(5) of the Act. In the proviso the said sub-section (5) a duty has been cast upon a Returning Officer that in case of raising of an objection either suo-moto by the Returning Officer or by any other person then time was required to be given to the concerned candidate to rebut it and it was only thereafter that the Returning Officer was to pass the order. The very fact that a right of rebuttal has been provided to the concerned candidate inherently means leading of such evidence and bringing on record such material which might be required to meet the aforesaid objection. The nature of the enquiry envisaged under Section 36(5) is quasi-judicial in nature and although the said enquiry is summary in nature but the Returning Officer is obliged in law to take into consideration the entire material brought on record by the concerned candidate to rebut and meet the objection. The nature of the enquiry envisaged under Section 36(5) is quasi-judicial in nature and although the said enquiry is summary in nature but the Returning Officer is obliged in law to take into consideration the entire material brought on record by the concerned candidate to rebut and meet the objection. In fact, in Rakesh Kumars case (supra) the Apex Court has categorically observed that the Returning Officer was bound in law to grant time to the candidate in the aforesaid case so that the candidate could provide clarification from the BJP as to who was the official candidate. Thus, the submission raised by Shri Sukhbir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent has no merit and is rejected. 79. Under these circumstances, the findings on issue No. 1 are returned in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 2 80. No evidence has been led in this regard by the respondent. Even during the course of arguments, nothing meaningful has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent. No material has been brought to my notice as to hold that the petitioner had not approached this court which clean hands. Accordingly this issue is decided against the respondent. Issue No. 3 81. I have already held above that the Returning Officer had wrongly and improperly rejected the nomination papers of petitioner Kamal Sharma filed before him for the election of 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. The result is that the election of 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the election petition is hereby allowed, with no order as to costs, and the election of 50-Safidon Assembly constituency to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha held on February 22, 2000, the result whereof was declared on February 25, 2000 is hereby declared void and as such set aside. It is further directed that the Election Commission of India shall hold fresh the election for 50-Safidon Assembly Constituency. In view of the provisions of Section 103 of the Act, authenticated copies of the decision be conveyed to the Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Haryana and Election Commission, New Delhi, forthwith, by the Registry. Petition allowed.