JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. 1. Leave to add the State Election Commission as a party Respondent. Addition be carried out forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 31 st December, 2025 passed by the Returning Officer, by which the nomination form was rejected on the ground that the affidavit supporting the nomination form did not carry the signature of the Petitioner candidate, as submitted before the Returning Officer. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently canvassed that though the affidavit filed along with the nomination form before the last date for filing, did not carry the signature of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had filed another affidavit on 29 th December, 2025 on a Rs. 100/- Indian non-judicial stamp paper. 4. I have perused both the affidavits. The first affidavit, which is stated to be in support of the nomination form, cannot be termed as an affidavit from any angle. The date, month, and year are left blank. A stamp is affixed by Adv. Sudat G. Wahulkar, Notary, Government of India, District Aurangabad. It is a matter requiring investigation as to how the Notary could affix the stamp certifying that the Petitioner affirmed the affidavit on oath before him when the Petitioner has not even signed the document. There are blank spaces with regard to the date, month, and year, and the Advocate has not signed for identifying the Petitioner. 5. The second affidavit, which the Petitioner is strenuously contending to be in support of the nomination form, indicates the date of purchase of the stamp paper as 29 th December, 2025. The stamp affixed by Adv. Sudat G. Wahulkar shows overwriting to indicate the date as 26 th December, 2025, whereas another stamp affixed by the same Notary mentions the date as 29 th December, 2025. The signature of the Petitioner appears on this affidavit. However, the Advocate has not signed for identification. Further, the notary stamp appears to be completely blank, which is apparent at a mere glance. As such, this affidavit is also defective. 6. In these circumstances, the Petitioner prays that the present Petition be considered by this Court. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances recorded herein above, no interim relief.