Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayer for quashing the order dated 29.03.2011 made in Rc. No.Zone VII/Egmore/AC/1/2011 whereby his nomination paper has been rejected by the second respondent-Returning Officer, 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constituency), Chennai. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he submitted his nomination paper for the election to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 16 Egmore (SC Assembly Constituency) on 26.03.2011, but his nomination paper was rejected on the ground of non-submission of sworn affidavit to be filed by the petitioner on assets and liabilities on a stamp paper. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that no where in the directives or in the memo issued by the respondents, it was mentioned that an affidavit should be filed on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-, which should be attested by the competent authorities. It is contended that since the rule does not provide for filing of affidavit on a stamp paper, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity for correcting the defects before rejecting his nomination paper. 4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he did not file along with his nomination paper an affidavit prescribed by the Election Commission vide its letter dated 27.02.2003 and another affidavit in Form No.26. After the nomination paper was filed by the petitioner, the second respondent namely, the Returning Officer vide letter dated 26.03.2011 informed the petitioner that the requisite affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities must be furnished and consequent upon non-filing of the affidavit, the order will follow. Inspite of the direction given to the petitioner he failed to submit the sworn affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities on a stamp paper, and consequently, his nomination paper was rejected. 5. It is well settled that a candidate, who is willing to contest the election, either of Parliament or Assembly, must disclose his assets and liabilities while submitting the nomination paper. The said disclosure of assets and liabilities must be by way of an affidavit duly sworn in by the candidate on a stamp paper of a value of Rs.20/-. If such affidavit is not filed disclosing the assets and liabilities, then the defects is substantial in nature, and therefore, the Returning Officer is bound to reject the candidate’s nomination paper. The said disclosure of assets and liabilities must be by way of an affidavit duly sworn in by the candidate on a stamp paper of a value of Rs.20/-. If such affidavit is not filed disclosing the assets and liabilities, then the defects is substantial in nature, and therefore, the Returning Officer is bound to reject the candidate’s nomination paper. In the instant case also, on account of non-filing of the affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities, the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, in our view, the rejection of nomination paper cannot be held to be formal in nature, which needs interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.