550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974) 1 S.C.R. cl Gujarat in Election Petition No. 9 of 1972 on issues No. 1 and 5; which were tried as preliminary issues, are correct. A An election fo elect four members of the Council of States from the State of Gujarat was to be held on April 8, 1972. The appellant aud respondents No. 1 to 5 filed nominations. On scrutiny, the returning officer held them to be valid. On April 8, 1972, the election was held at Gandhi Nagar and the appellant aJJd respondents 2, 3 and 5 were declared elected. B On May 1, 1972, respondent no, 1 filed the election petition to declare the elections of the appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 5 l'Oid. '.f,he main ground urged . in the election petition for declaring the election of respondents 4 and 5 in .the election petition (respondent 5 and the appellant respectively here) void-with which alone we c are concerned in this appeal-was that iliey were not ordinarily resident in the area covered by any parliamentary constituency in the· State of Gujarat and that their names had been illegally entered in the electro! roll of the respective constituency in Gujarat and as they were not 'electors' within the meaning of s. 2(1)(e) of the Representation of P_eople Act, 19 51, they were not eligible to become candidates in the election. Respondent No . .1 also raised -several D ·O.ther contentions in support of the declaration prayed for. The court framed issues No. 1 to 5 and tried them preliminarily and !)ntered findings thereon in · favour of respondent no. 1 Mr. Rajl,!. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the correctness of the findings on issues no. 1 and 5. These issues are : E '.' 1. Whether there is misjoinder of parties and causes of action? 5. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide whether the entries in the electoral roll regarding respondent No. 4 and/ or respondent No. 5 are valid or not ?" Mr. B. Sen, Counsel for the appellant, did not address any ".rgument as regards the correctness of the finding on issue No. 1. F We are. therefore, only concerned with the correctness of the finding on issue No. 5. As already stated, the coiltention . on _ the basis of which this issue was raised was that f!)Spondents No. 4 and 5 in the election petition were not ordinarily resident in any of the parliamentary constitutencies in the State of Gujarat and, as they had not fuJfiJled the condition for being entered in the electoral roll of any parliamentary constituency in Gujarat, they were not elec· G tors within the meaning of s. 2(1 )(e) of the Representation of the Pe0ple Act, 1951, and were ineligible to stand as candidates in the election.
