ORDER : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Girish M. Das for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed challenging the election of opponent no.1 under sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (For short “the Act, 1951”) as amended by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 by the petitioner who was one of the candidates of election in the voter list of election constituency being constituency No.8-Tharad of Gujarat State Assembly General Elections -2022. 3. The petitioner has initially filed election petition in Gujarati vernacular language and thereafter translated copy was submitted and therefore, this election petition though filed in the year 2023 was not heard for a considerable long time on one pretext or another and due to time sought by the petitioner from time to time. 4. The petitioner has pointed out the following defects in the form and affidavit filed by opponent no.1 which is reproduced as under: “(7) Candidate Shankerbhai Lagdhirbhai Chaudhary nomination form No. 1, 2, 3, 4 Name of Party BJP. Defect No. 1 Form 26 affidavit column No. 2 and 3 columns are removed, that is column No. 2 and 3 are blank. Defect No. 2 In Form 26 affidavit in paragraph No. 4 in return column against the year for five years different numbers such as (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) are given these are removed, therefore the number column is blank. Defect No. 3 In the Form 26 affidavit paragraph No. 8 at Sr. No. 2 column is blank in the other columns verification is not done. The separate verification is not done and produced and with the No Objection Certificate verification is not done, therefore the column is blank and the other column is removed, and the second column is to be filled in by putting a tick mark, but the column is not kept and is removed, therefore, the column is blank. Defect No. 4 Additional affidavit although occupying government Accommodation since 10 years then also additional affidavit is not made with No Objection Certificate therefore as per section 36 it is defective. Defect No. 4 Additional affidavit although occupying government Accommodation since 10 years then also additional affidavit is not made with No Objection Certificate therefore as per section 36 it is defective. Thus, all the above defects are found, for all these defects his nomination form No. 1, 2, 3, 4 Form 26 is defective and additional affidavit is defective, Form 26 is defective and additional affidavit is defective therefore prima facie it deserves to be dismissed, therefore dismiss the same and not to approve the same. I have my strong oral and written objections against approving and his nomination form is in contempt of orders dated 13/9/2013 by the honourable Supreme Court. It is violative of honourable Delhi High Court and honourale Election Commission of India order dated 3rd February 2016, therefore request to dismiss the same. And I have very strong objections against approving the said nomination form.” 5. Learned advocate Mr. Girish Das appearing for the petitioner submitted that Defect nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Form No. 26 were part of the objections raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer submitted on 18.11.2022 at 11:49 am which was rejected by the Returning Officer by the order dated 18.11.2022 relying upon the notification dated 10.10.2018 and notification dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Election Commission of India. 6. It was submitted that so far as defect nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, opponent no.1 has not stated the row nos. 5 and 6 as per the prescribed form showing the details of defendant nos.2 and 3. It was submitted that if there are no details of defendant nos. 2 and 3, then opponent no.1 ought to have stated as not applicable but could not have deleted the rows from the prescribed Form No.26 under Rule 4A of the Election Rules, 1961. 7. It was further pointed out that as per the prescribed form in column no. 4 and 5, opponent no.1 has not given serial number of details of five financial years for the last income tax returns filed. It was submitted that opponent no.1 has therefore, altered the form by not mentioning (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) against each of the financial years i.e. from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 mentioned in the Form. 8. It was further pointed out that similarly in paragraph no.8 of the Form No. 26, opponent no.1 has deleted the last two columns of defendant nos. It was submitted that opponent no.1 has therefore, altered the form by not mentioning (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) against each of the financial years i.e. from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 mentioned in the Form. 8. It was further pointed out that similarly in paragraph no.8 of the Form No. 26, opponent no.1 has deleted the last two columns of defendant nos. 2 and 3 which ought to have been mentioned and if not applicable ought to have been mentioned as Not Applicable or Nil. But opponent no.1 could not have omitted to include the columns for defendant nos. 2 and 3 if they are not in existence and thereby application Form No. 26 filed by the opponent no.1 under Rule 4A is defective. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Das submitted that opponent no.1 has not filed the additional affidavit as prescribed for occupying or not occupying the Government accommodation since 10 years and therefore, the Returning Officer has committed breach of section 36 for the scrutiny of nomination form. 10. It was therefore, submitted that aforesaid defects in the nomination Form no. 26 filed by opponent no.1 makes it defective and in absence of additional affidavit the nomination of opponent no.1 ought to have been cancelled and as a consequence thereof opponent no.1 be declared as a non-elected person and reelection for constituency-8 Tharad of Gujarat State Assembly should be ordered. 11. In support of his submission reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India & Anr. [Judgment dated 13.09.2013 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) Appeal No.121 of 2008]. Referring to the said judgment it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made reference to the decision in case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 to hold that non furnishing of the affidavit by any candidate or furnishing of any wrong or incomplete information or suppression of any material information will result in the rejection of the nomination paper, apart from inviting penal consequences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was also held in the said decision that such information shall be considered to be wrong or incomplete or suppression of material information which is found to be a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officer in the summary inquiry conducted by him at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers. 12. Except the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Das has not made any other submission to challenge the election of opponent no.1 who is declared as elected in Gujarat State Assembly General Election 2022 from constituency 8-Tharad. 13. Considering the above defects pointed out by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has filed the petition by referring to the defects which are apparently non-existent. 14. So far as defect no.1 is concerned, column nos. 2 and 3 are removed as there appears to be no dependent no. 2 and 3 of the opponent no.1 and therefore, it cannot be said that same were removed resulting into defect of any substantial character. 15. Same applies to defect nos. 2 and 3 by removing serial no.2 column with regard to dependent nos. 2 and 3 because in absence of any other information, omission of the column cannot be said to be defect of any substantial character. 16. Non mentioning of serial number for financial years mentioned in the details submitted in column no.4 also cannot be said to be defect of any substantial character as opponent no.1 has given details of financial years and income tax returns filed for the previous five years which is not in dispute. 17. With regard to defect no.4, pointed out by petitioner it is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not raise any objection before the Returning Officer with regard to additional affidavit to be filed for occupation and non occupation of the Government accommodation by the opponent no.1. The Returning Officer has scrutinised the nomination form as provided in section 36 of the Act, 1951 and it was found to be in order and therefore, in absence of any objection raised by the petitioner before the Returning Officer at the relevant point of time and in absence of pointing out any further information with regard to the applicability of the additional affidavit to be submitted by opponent no.1, defect no.4 cannot be considered of substantial character so as to reject the nomination form filed by opponent no.1. 18. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Resurgence India(surpa) while referring to the decision of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another(supra), has clarified that “only such information shall be considered to be wrong or incomplete or suppression of the material information which is found to be a defect of substantial character by the Returning Officer in the summary inquiry conducted by him at time of scrutiny of the nomination papers.” 19. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the defects pointed out by the petitioner can be considered to be wrong incomplete or suppression of material information of any substantial character. 20. Under such circumstances, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.