G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.)THIS appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been preferred by a candidate against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2004 of the High Court of Uttaranchal by which the election petition filed by him challenging the election of the respondent Surendra Singh Negi was dismissed.
(2.)THE Election Commission of India issued a notification calling upon the electors of Uttaranchal to elect members of Uttaranchal Vidhan Sabha including those from 29 Kotdwar Legislative Assembly Constituency. According to the notification the schedule of the election was as under:-
i) Last date for filing of nomination paper-23.1.2002 ii) Date of Scrutiny of nomination paper - 24.1.2002 iii) Date for withdrawal of nomination - 28.1.2002 iv) Date of poll, if any - 14.2.2002 v) Date for counting of votes and Declaration of result - 24.2.2002
THE appellant filed four sets of nomination papers, which were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that Forms 'A' and 'B' were submitted by the appellant at 4.10 p.m. on 23.1.2002, i.e., after the time fixed for filing of the nomination papers. On account of rejection of his nomination papers, the appellant could not contest the election and the respondent Surendra Singh Negi was declared to have been elected from the 29th Kotdwar Constituency.
The appellant then filed an Election Petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act challenging the election of the respondent Surendra Singh Negi to the Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly from 29 Kotdwar Legislative Assembly Constituency of District Pauri Garhwal. The election petition was filed on the grounds inter alia that the appellant was official candidate of Bhartiya Janata Party (for short 'BJP') and as the decision in that regard had been taken by the high command of the party on 17.1.2002, he was handed over duly filled in Forms 'A' and 'B' as prescribed by the Elec- lion Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (for short 'Symbols Order'). Form 'A' was issued by Shri Jana Krishnamurti, National President of BJP authorizing Shri Puran Chandra Sharma, the President of Uttaranchal State BJP to intimate the name of the candidate to be set up by the Party. Form 'B' was issued by Shri Puran Chand Sharma and was addressed to the Returning Officer of 29 Kotdwar Assembly Constituency notifying the appellant to be the official candidate of the Party from the aforesaid Constituency in the said election. The appellant in person filed four sets of nomination papers on 22.1.2002 as a candidate of BJP along with aforementioned Forms 'A' and 'B' issued under the Symbols Order before the Returning Officer of 29 Kotdwar Assembly Constituency. The nomination papers were duly filled up and fully complied with all the requirements and formalities prescribed by Section 33 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Similarly Forms 'A' and 'B', which had been filed along with the nomination papers were duly filled up and contained the requisite signatures and thus complied with all the requirements of law. The Returning Officer commenced the scrutiny of the nomination papers in his office at about 11.30 A.M. on 24.1.2002 where the appellant along with his proposer Shri Mohan Singh was present. The appellant's nomination papers, which had been placed at serial numbers 18 to 21, were taken up for scrutiny at about 11.45 A.M. The Returning Officer, after careful scrutiny of the nomination papers, found them to be valid and after stating orally that the same were valid he passed orders in Hindi on all the nomination papers to the effect "after scrutiny found valid". After some time the appellant left the office of the Returning Officer and proceeded to his Constituency, which is approximately 100 kilometers from Pauri Garhwal where the scrutiny had been done. While on way to Kotdwar the appellant contacted his election office on phone and came to know that subsequent to his leaving the office of the Returning Officer, his nomination papers had been rejected. The appellant immediately returned but by the time he reached the office of the Returning Officer, it had been closed. The appellant then approached the Observer appointed by the Election Commission on 24.1.2002 and apprised him of the illegal and improper rejection of his nomination papers. He also sent written complaints to the Chief Election Commissioner and other authorities. It was specifically pleaded that the Returning had made interpolations by adding the Hindi word "Aa" before the word "vaidh". Subsequently on 25.1.2002 the appellant received a communication dated 24.1.2002 from the Returning Officer intimating him that his nomination papers, which had been filed on 22.1.2002 had been rejected on the ground that Forms 'A' and 'B' were filed at 4.10 P.M. on 23.1.2002. Certain other pleas were also taken which are not very relevant for the decision of the appeal.

The respondent Surendra Singh Negi contested the election petition by filing a written statement on the ground inter alia that the appellant had filed his nomination papers before the Returning Officer on 22.1.2002 but Forms 'A' and 'B' issued under the Symbols Order were not submitted on the said date. He was informed by his party workers and associates that the appellant had not submitted Forms 'A' and 'B' till 3.00 P.M. on 23.1.2002 and had submitted the same at 4.10 P.M. on the said date before the Assistant Returning Officer. Since Forms 'A' and 'B' were not submitted by the appellant till 3.00 P.M. on 23.1.2002 his nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Subsequently, the appellant tried to pressurize the Returning Officer for declaring the nomination papers submitted by him as valid. It was further pleaded that the respondent had polled more than double number of votes than those secured by Shri Bhuvnesh Khakral, who was a'BJP supported candidate.

(3.)ON the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed several issues and issue Nos. 1 and 3, which are the principal issues, read as under :-
"(1) Whether the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected as alleged by the petitioner? If so, its effect? (3) Whether any manipulation in the nomination paper of the petitioner has been made as alleged? If so, its effect?"
After appraisal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties the High Court held that no interpolation had been done in the appellant's nomination papers and consequently there was no merit in the case set up by him. It was further held that as the Forms 'A' and 'B' of the Sumbols Order had been submitted by the appellant at 4.10 P.M. on 23.1.2002, which was beyond the time prescribed by the relevant statutory provisions and the order of the Election Commission, the same were rightly rejected. The election petition was accordingly dismissed.
We have heard Shri Subodh Markandey, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.A. Mohta, learned Senior Advocate for the contesting respondent. Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it will be convenient to set out the relevant statutory provisions. Para 13 of the Symbols Order reads as under:-

"13. When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party.-For the purpose 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; (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 of 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 authorized by the party to send the notice; (d) the name and specimen signature of such authorized 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; 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 or authorized person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted."