papers and decide all objections which may be made to any nomination. He may reject any nomination on the grounds mentioned therein either on such objection or on his own motion. From a conjoint reading of subrules (1) and (2) of rule 25, it is clear that only a candidate and / or a proposer of a candidate may examine the nomination paper of a candidate and raise objection to a nomination which will then be decided by the returning officer. No other person can raise objection to the nomination of a candidate because he will not be allowed to attend the scrutiny of nomination. Then again, if we minutely observe the language used in sub-rule (1) of rule 72-A of the Election Rules, 2017, we find that validity of an election can be questioned by any person who is qualified to be elected or to vote at the election. Though the aforesaid provision does not restrict the objector or challenger to be a voter of the constituency of the candidate, what it says is that to question such election, he has to be qualified to be a voter and to be elected. As already pointed out above, respondent No.2 has not stated in his reply affidavit that he is a voter of the APMC and the constituency to which he belongs. He has also not stated whether he was a candidate or a proposer of a candidate in the election to the APMC. Therefore, petitioner had rightly questioned the locus standi of respondent No.2 which was not gone into by both respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 vitiating the decisions dated 13.01.2021 and 22.07.2021.
