The Election Commission of India issued a notification to hold general election in 5-Udhampur Parliamentary Con­stituency on 28-3-2009. The last date for nomination was 4-4-2009 whereas scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 6-4-2009. The election was scheduled on 23-4-2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua was appointed as Returning Officer for the said Constituency. The result was declared on 16-5-2009 and respondent No. 2 was de­clared elected from the aforesaid Constitu­ency. He represented Indian National Con­gress. The election of respondent No. 2 has been questioned by the petitioner in the present petition. 2. In pursuance to the notification, 14 can­didates had filed their nomination papers, which included respondent No. 2 also. The Returning Officer accepted 14 nominations, which included the nomination of the peti­tioner, respondents 2 and 3. The election has been questioned by the petitioner, essentially, on the ground that nomination of respondent No. 2, who was sponsored by Indian Na­tional Congress, a recognized party was no­tified by one J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee, which did not exist as a regis­tered party. Secondly, it is contended that the nomination papers of resondent No. 3 were not in accordance with the rules, instructions and the guidelines of the Election Commis­sion of India as the Forms A and B were not filled in all respects as is mandatory under the guidelines and rules framed by Election Commission of India. Besides, the oath was not taken in accordance with the mandate of law. 3. The factual matrix laid down by the petitioner in questioning the election of re­spondent No. 2 reveals that authorization given by the General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Shri Saifuddin Soz, Presi­dent, Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress Committee to nominate a candidate for J. and K. was done before notification to hold elec­tion of the Constituency was issued. Form-B was signed by the person who claimed to be the President of J. and K. Pradesh Con­gress (I) Committee, Jammu which party did not exist as a registered party with the Elec­tion Commission of India. 4. What is being contended is that the nomination of respondent No. 2 by Profes­sor Saifuddin Soz as resident of J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee was illegal as no such party was registered, with the Election Commission of India, therefore, acceptance of nomination papers of respon­dent No. 2 was improper. 5. 4. What is being contended is that the nomination of respondent No. 2 by Profes­sor Saifuddin Soz as resident of J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee was illegal as no such party was registered, with the Election Commission of India, therefore, acceptance of nomination papers of respon­dent No. 2 was improper. 5. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that Forms-A and B were not duly filled up in all respects as is mandatory under In­struction S. No. 19 in the Compendium of Instructions on Conduct of Elections - Volume-II which requires that notices in Form-A and Form B should be signed in original and filled in all respects. Form-A signed by the President of BJP did not mention any date, which defeated the requirement of Form-A as it should have been duly filled up in all respects. Form-B signed by the State President of BJP also did not fill the column relating to date, which clearly violate the command of the Election Commission's let­ter dated 14-1-2009. Form of respondent No. 3 was wrongly accepted. Improper acceptance of forms has materially affected the outcome of the result in the said parliamentary elec­tion. 6. Except respondent Nos. 1 and 2, other respondents have not chosen to file their ob­jections. 7. It is contended by the answering respon­dents that none of the objection raised has ever been taken before the Returning Officer. It is stated that the signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz as an authorized person to nominate the candidate for and on behalf of the Indian National Congress is clearly vis­ible in Form-A. Professor Saifuddin Saz was authorized by the Indian National Congress to nominate the candidate, for and on behalf of the parties. His three specimen signatures are also appended in the Form-A. In Form-B, the signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz are also appended which tally with the signatures in Form-A. On such authorization, Professor Saifuddin Soz nominated respon­dent No.2 as an official candidate of Indian National Congress for Udhampur Constitu­ency. Signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz has been appended in Form-B as President of Indian National Congress. 8. The authorization given in Form-A dated 23-3-2009 much before the actual date of holding election is strictly in accordance with law. The notification dated 28-3-2009 deals with Parliamentary Constituency of Udhampur, which was preceded by General Notification of holding election on 23-3-2009. 9. Signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz has been appended in Form-B as President of Indian National Congress. 8. The authorization given in Form-A dated 23-3-2009 much before the actual date of holding election is strictly in accordance with law. The notification dated 28-3-2009 deals with Parliamentary Constituency of Udhampur, which was preceded by General Notification of holding election on 23-3-2009. 9. Notice in the Form-B has been duly signed by Professor Saifuddin Soz as Presi­dent of the party. The signatures on Form A and B were compared by Returning Officer when nomination papers of respondent No. 2 was submitted before him. It is only after satisfying the conditions required, forms were accepted. 10. While replying the contention raised against respondent No. 3, answering respon­dents state that oath was administered by Dr. Nirmal Singh strictly in consonance with law. 11. The petitioner did not press the con­tention raised against other candidates. He confined himself only to the improper accep­tance of nomination papers of respondents 2 and 3. 12. On the pleadings of the parties, fol­lowing issues were framed on 17-8-2010:- 1. Whether holding of election to the par­liament in different phases was in violation of the Act or Rules? OPR 2. Whether nomination of respondent No. 3 was wrongly accepted as the same was in violation of the Forms A and B as they do not bear any date on which such authoriza­tion was made? OPR 3. Whether use of Electronic Voting Ma­chine amounts to corrupt practice? OPR 4. Whether Forms of respondents 2 and 3 have been wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer in violation of the Act and Rules? OPR. 5. Relief. 13. After framing of issues, objection was raised by the respondents that some issues are preliminary in nature and are required to be heard at the threshold. It is also stated that onus on issues 1 to 4 has wrongly been shown on the respondents while as it lies on the pe­titioner. The onus was shifted on the peti­tioner vide order dated 29-12-2010. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that he wants to argue on issue 2 and 4. The matter was taken up for argument on issues 2 and 4 to be addressed by the pe­titioner. He did not press issues 1 and 3. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove issue Nos. 2 and 4. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that he wants to argue on issue 2 and 4. The matter was taken up for argument on issues 2 and 4 to be addressed by the pe­titioner. He did not press issues 1 and 3. The petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove issue Nos. 2 and 4. 15. A plain reading of issues 2 and 4 re­veals that it is improper acceptance of nomi­nation papers of respondents 2 and 3, which according to the petitioner tantamount to corrupt practice, as such, election of respon­dent No. 2 is required to be set aside. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. The contention raised by learned coun­sel for the petitioner is that while accepting the Forms of respondents 2 and 3. Section 36 of the Act has been violated which pro­vides scrutiny of nominations. 18. What is being contended is that forms have not been accepted in terms of Section 36 (2)(b) and (c). The stand of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was proposed by Pradesh Congress Committee, which is not a registered party. While taking this plea that it violates clause (c) of the aforementioned Section, what is stated is that the signatures on Forms A and B are not genuine. Accep­tance of form of respondent No. 3 improp­erly has materially affected the outcome of the election. 19. While analyzing the import of Section 36, sub-clause (2), the stand of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was nominated by a party which was not recognized, cannot be accepted. While examining forms A and B, it clearly emerges that the General Secretary of Indian National Congress authorized Pro­fessor Saifuddin Soz as President of J and K Pradesh National Congress to nominate the candidate in the Parliamentary Constituency in Udhampur. The specimen signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz are also visible from Form-A. Form-B, clearly shows that notice has been given on behalf of the Indian Na­tional Congress. The specimen signatures of Professor Saifuddin Soz are also visible from the said form. The stamp on the form, how­ever, shows J. and K. Pradesh Congress Com­mittee. Merely because there is a stamp of J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee would not create any impression that respon­dent No. 2 was nominated by a party called as J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Commit­tee. The stamp on the form, how­ever, shows J. and K. Pradesh Congress Com­mittee. Merely because there is a stamp of J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Committee would not create any impression that respon­dent No. 2 was nominated by a party called as J. and K. Pradesh Congress (I) Commit­tee. It is not in dispute that Professor Saifuddin Soz, has been authorized as Presi­dent of Indian National Congress and he has notified the candidature on behalf of the In­dian National Congress which can be seen from Form-B. His signatures are also ap­pended therein. The defect per se is of not substantial character. The absence of seal of party in the nomination paper cannot be said to be a defect of a substantial character so as to render it invalid. The petitioner did not dispute the signature of Profession Saifuddin Soz in Forms A and B. 20. Clause 4 of Section 36 envisages that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any de­fect which is not of a substantial character. 21. Analyzing in the present context, all that is stated by the petitioner is that the seal on Form-B mentions J. & K. Pradesh Con­gress (I) Committee which is not a recog­nized party. The substantial compliance with the provision requires that there has to be authorization by party to nominate the candidates, who are to contest the election. Sub­stantial compliance can be said to have not been made if it is shown that there was no authorization by a party to the person who nominated the said candidate. The other as­pect of the matter would be that in case can­didate is not nominated by a person autho­rized in this behalf. Both things stand com­plied with in this case. 22. All that the petitioner tried to show is that there is no seal of Congress Party in Form-B. It is not in dispute that signatures of the persons authorized are not on Form-B. As a matter of fact no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in this petition. Ab­sence of seal of Congress Party on Form-B, cannot be said to be a defect so as to render it invalid. 23.1 am fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Phal Kundu, Appel­lant v. Kamal Sharma, Respondent reported in AIR 2004 SC 1657 wherein it is held as under:- " 4. Ab­sence of seal of Congress Party on Form-B, cannot be said to be a defect so as to render it invalid. 23.1 am fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Phal Kundu, Appel­lant v. Kamal Sharma, Respondent reported in AIR 2004 SC 1657 wherein it is held as under:- " 4. Para 2 of the Form must be scored off, if not applicable, or must be property filled, if applicable. The Form B which has been submitted by Kamal Sharma no doubt bears seal of the Congress party, which has been done by an ordinary rubber stamp with the commonly used blue ink pad and there is nothing spe­cial about it. Such a seal can easily be pre­pared or procured by a little effort. It is not a type of seal which may be dificult to emu­late and is kept in a safe custody under the charge of a responsible person, which may not be available to anyone. What is impor­tant and decisive is the signature in ink of the authorized person and not the seal of the party which can be made by an ordinary rub­ber stamp by anyone. Section 36(4) of the Act lays down that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a sub­stantial character. The absence of the seal of the Congress party in the nomination paper of Bachan Singh cannot be said to be a de­fect of a substantial character so as to render it invalid." 24. Other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that form of re­spondent No. 3 has been improperly accepted which has materially affected the result of election. The contention of the petitioner in this behalf is that oath was administered by respondent No. 3 and there is no date on the Forms A and B while nominating the autho­rized person and consequently nomination made by the authorized person in Form-B. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that no oath was administered to re­spondent No. 3. In absence of any evidence in this behalf, no interference can be drawn merely on the pleading of the parties. 25. In absence of any evidence in this behalf, no interference can be drawn merely on the pleading of the parties. 25. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Election Commission of India hereby made the following order called.as "The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment), Order, 1968. Rule 13 of the aforesaid rules provides a manner in which a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party, if and only, if - (a) the candidate has made 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 rolls of members of the party. (b) a notice in writing in Form B, to that effect has, not later than 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations delivered to the Returning Officer of the constituency and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State; (c) The said notice is signed by the Presi­dent, the Secretary or any other office bearer of the party and the President. Secretary or such other office bearer authorized by the party to send such notice; (d) The name and specimen signature of such authorized person are communicated, 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; and (e) Forms A and B are signed, in ink only; by the said office bearer or person authorized by the party:, Provided that no facsimile signature or signature by means of rubber stamp, etc., of any such office bearer shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. 26. The import of the aforesaid rules clearly mentions that if the conditions afore­mentioned are fulfilled the candidate is said to have been set up by a political party. In the present case, Forms A and B have been filled up in accordance with the aforemen­tioned rules. Any non-compliance of the aforementioned requirement would render the election invalid. 26. The import of the aforesaid rules clearly mentions that if the conditions afore­mentioned are fulfilled the candidate is said to have been set up by a political party. In the present case, Forms A and B have been filled up in accordance with the aforemen­tioned rules. Any non-compliance of the aforementioned requirement would render the election invalid. It be noted that respon­dent No. 1 has denied all the allegations lev­elled by the petitioner by stating that nomi­nation papers of respondent No. 3 have been accepted strictly in accordance with the rules. 27. The other aspect is that whether ac­ceptance of form of respondent No. 3 would materially affect the result of election is an issue which is required to be proved. Merely because the wasted votes are more than the difference of votes secured by the candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes, an inference as to the result of the election having been materially af­fected cannot necessarily be drawn. The is­sue is one of the facts and the onus of prov­ing it lies upon the petitioner. In the present case, even if form of respondent No. 3 had been improperly accepted, it is still to be proved that the same would materially af­fect the election which burden has not been discharged by the petitioner by leading evi­dence. Respondent No. 3 has secured 218459 votes and lost election by 13,394 votes. 28. What is being contended is that votes which were voted in his favour were wasted votes and would not have been cast is favour of the answering respondent No. 2. These are issues which require clear pleadings and proof. Mere acceptance of the nomination forms of respondent No. 3 would not mean that the result of the election would be mate­rially affected. It is admitted that the peti­tioner has not led any evidence to prove this fact. 29. I am fortified in this view by a judg­ment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 241 Santosh Yadav, appellant v. Narender Singh, Respondent. It is admitted that the peti­tioner has not led any evidence to prove this fact. 29. I am fortified in this view by a judg­ment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 241 Santosh Yadav, appellant v. Narender Singh, Respondent. "Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), S.100(1)(d)- "Result of election ma­terially affected"- Plea that if a particular candidate was excluded, votes polled by him would have been polled by petitioner - No evidence however showing how many vot­ers were there and which way polling went as amongst different candidates of pattern or votng in that constituency - Petition liable to be dismissed as petitioner failed in proving that result of election of returned candidate was materially affected by improer accep­tance of nomination of that candidate."..... 16. The law as regards the result of elec­tion having been materially affected in case of improper acceptance of nomination may be summed up as under:- 1. A case of result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, hav­ing been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination, within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Rep­resentation of the People Act, 1951 has to be made out by raising specific pleadings set­ting out all material facts and adducing co­gent evidence so as to enable a clear finding being arrived at on the distribution of wasted votes, that is the manner in which the votes should have been distributed if the candidate, whose nomination paper was improperly ac­cepted was not in the fray. 2. Merely because the wasted votes are more than the difference of votes secured by the returned candidates and the candidate securting the next highest number of votes, an inference as to the result of the election having been materially affected cannot nec­essarily be drawn. The issue is one of fact and the onus of proving it lies upon the peti­tioner. 3. The burden of proving such material effect has to be discharged by the election petitioner by adducing positive, satisfactory and cogent evidence if the petitioner is un­able to adduce such evidence the burden is not discharged and the election must stand. This rule may operate harshly upon the peti­tioner seeking to set aside the election on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomina­tion paper, but the court is not concerned with the inconvenience resulting from the opera­tion of the law. This rule may operate harshly upon the peti­tioner seeking to set aside the election on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomina­tion paper, but the court is not concerned with the inconvenience resulting from the opera­tion of the law. Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax the rigour of required proof. 4. The burden of proof placed on the elec­tion petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, specu­lation, surmises or conjectures i.e. acting on a mere possibility. It will not suffice merely to say that all or majority of wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candi­date. The law requires proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature. 5. The casting of votes at an election de­pends upon a variety of factors and it is not possible for any one to predicate how many or which proportion of the votes will go to one or the other of the candidates. It is not permissible to accept the 'ipse dixit' of wit­ness coming from one side or the other to say that all or some of the votes would have gone to one or the other on some supposed or imaginary ground." 30. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove ingredients of Section 100 (1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act. 31. The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly in­terfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the re­quirements of the law-one of the essentials of the election law is to safeguard the purity of the election process and, therefore, the courts must zealously ensure that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by indulging in corrupt practices, as enumerated in the Act. 32. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no force in this petition. The same is, as such, dismissed along with connected CMP(s), if any. Petition dismissed.