Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Janki Nath Bhat

ORDER

Janki Nath Bhat, J.

1. Shri Sham Lal Saraf, the Petitioner, seeks to challenge the election of Respondent No. 1 Shri Mohammad Shafi Qureshi to the Parliamentary Constituency Anantnag, Kashmir in the last general elections of 1967. The Petitioner and the two Respondents M/s. Mohammad Shafi Qureshi and Rughu Nath Vaishnavi Respondent No. 2 sought to contest this election. The petition recites that the Petitioner is a resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and is registered as a voter in the Parliamentary Constituency Srinagar District. The registered voters of the Parliamentary constituencies in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were called upon to elect their representatives to the House of People. The nomination papers were to be filed before the Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as R.O. in this judgment) between the hours of 11 O'clock to 3 P.M. each day from 13th of January 1967 to 20th of January 1967. The Petitioner belongs to the National Conference party and the Respondent No. 1 to the Indian National Congress party, both of which parties were recognised by the Election Commission. On 20th January 1967, accompanied by his proposer, the Petitioner went to file his nomination papers in the office of the R.O., who was the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate Anantnag. He found the R.O. absent from his office. The matter was telephonically reported to the Deputy Electoral Officer by the Petitioner's proposer. At about 2 P.M. the Assistant Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as A.R.O. in this judgment) of this Parliamentary Constituency, who was the Assistant Commissioner Anantnag, came to his office. The Petitioner along with his proposer approached him to accept the nomination paper of the Petitioner and accept the necessary election deposit. This gentleman was not inclined to accept the nomination paper of the Petitioner for a pretty long time and on the insistence of the Petitioner's proposer told the Petitioner and his proposer that he would accept the nomination paper only if the R.O. would not come to his office till 10 minutes to 3 P.M. The A.R.O. accepted the nomination paper of the Petitioner at 2-55 P.M. and recorded on the back of the nomination paper that he had accepted it because of the insistence of the Petitioner. The A.R.O. signed it as Assistant Commissioner and he was persuaded by the Petitioner's proposer to put three letters 'A.R.O.' meaning Assistant Returning Officer, with the words Assistant Commissioner. The election deposit was made by the Petitioner and a receipt obtained from the Assistant Returning Officer. During the night of the 20th January 1967 the Petitioner received a telegram from the A.R.O. designating himself as R.O. informing the Petitioner that the scrutiny of his nomination paper would be taken up on 21st instant at 11 in the morning. This telegram was unintelligible to the Petitioner but it confirmed the suspicions that the R.O. had earlier on the same day manoeuvred his absence from his office according to a plan and there was something more up his sleeve for the 21st January 1967, the date of the scrutiny. The Petitioner's proposer informed the Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi about the happenings till 2-45 P.M. on 20th January 1967. The Dy. Chief Electoral Officer, Srinagar, was also informed on telephone. On 21st January 1967 the Petitioner reached the office of the R.O. much before 11 O'clock and waited along with his proposer and other friends and colleagues in his office. As soon as the R.O. entered the room the Petitioner's proposer sought permission of the R.O. to allow the Petitioner to read and subscribe to the oath of allegiance as required by Article 84 of the Constitution of India. The R.O. did not agree but surprised the Petitioner and his proposer by tellin........