Party candidate recognition must follow timely Forms A and B; later evidence cannot override the statutory nomination record.

Under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Returning Officer had to determine the party candidate strictly from timely Forms A and B, and a revised Form B could validly rescind an earlier one if it reached the Returning Officer in time and was signed by an authorised office-bearer. On that basis, Bachan Singh was validly treated as the party's candidate; the absence of a party seal was not a statutory defect, and Kamal Sharma's nomination was rightly rejected. Later affidavits, letters and statements could not override the statutory record, and the Election Commission had no jurisdiction to direct re-scrutiny. The appeal succeeded, the election petition failed, and the returned candidate's election was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under paragraphs 13 and 13A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Bachan Singh or Kamal Sharma was the candidate set up by the political party; (ii) Whether subsequent oral and documentary material, including later statements and the Election Commission's order, could be used to displace the statutory position and invalidate the rejection of Kamal Sharma's nomination.

Issue (i): Whether, under paragraphs 13 and 13A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, Bachan Singh or Kamal Sharma was the candidate set up by the political party.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required delivery of Form B to the Returning Officer by 3 p.m. on the last date for nominations, signature in ink by an authorised office-bearer, and communication of authority in Form A. The later paragraph 13A permitted rescission of an earlier Form B and substitution by a revised Form B, provided the revised notice reached the Returning Officer within time and clearly recorded the rescission. Bachan Singh's Form B, submitted within time, expressly stated that the earlier Form B in favour of Kamal Sharma stood rescinded and was signed by the authorised person. The absence of a party seal was not a statutory requirement and was not a defect of substantial character.

Conclusion: Bachan Singh was validly treated as the candidate set up by the political party, and Kamal Sharma's nomination was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent oral and documentary material, including later statements and the Election Commission's order, could be used to displace the statutory position and invalidate the rejection of Kamal Sharma's nomination.

Analysis: The governing provisions were held to be exhaustive, and the statutory method could not be supplemented by extrinsic evidence after the last date for nominations. The later affidavits, letters and statements were therefore incapable of overriding the notice duly submitted under the Symbols Order. The Election Commission's direction for re-scrutiny was also held to be without jurisdiction, since rejection of a nomination is to be challenged only by an election petition after the election, and no intermediate remedy was available. The High Court's reliance on such material was thus unsustainable.

Conclusion: Subsequent material and the Election Commission's order could not displace the statutory determination, and the High Court's contrary view could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the election petition failed, and the returned candidate's election was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: When the election symbols rules prescribe a complete and exclusive procedure for recognising a party candidate and substitution of that candidate, the Returning Officer must decide strictly on the basis of timely Forms A and B, and later extrinsic evidence cannot be used to vary that determination.

---