circumstantial evidence with regard to there being gap in the birth of the four children of the petitioner also gives rise to a strong probability that the date of birth of the four children, as disclosed by the petitioner, may not be correct. However, the only thing which cannot be denied is that the issue is highly disputed and even on facts, there are materials which support the case of either the petitioner or the respondent no. 7. Thus, the same is not a case where there was unimpeachable material before the Commission to pass such an order. At the cost of repetition, the Court may indicate that in the impugned order itself, the State Election Commissioner has proceeded to pass the order on the basis of the report submitted by the District Administration which he himself refers to as being fit to be relied upon ( “maan liya ja sakta hai”). Thus, in such view of the matter, especially, the answer to question no. 1 of the reference at paragraph no. 183 which is squarely on this issue, supports the contention of the petitioner that in the background of disputed questions of fact, such contentious issue could not have been decided by the Commission. For the purpose of convenience, paragraphs no. 183 and 184 of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
