ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR v. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL & Ors.

3.2 It is clear that apart from the evidence in the form of electronic record, other evidence was also relied upon to arrive at the same conclusion. The High Court’s judgment therefore cannot be faulted. None of the earlier judgments of this Court referred to in Mairembam Prithviraj have been adverted to in Rajendra Kumar Meshram cited by Shri Adsure. In particular, the judgment of three learned Judges of this Court in Vashist Narain Sharma has specifically held that where the person whose nomination has been improperly accepted is the returned candidate himself, it may be readily conceded that the conclusion has to be that the result of the election would be “materially affected”, without there being any necessity to plead and prove the same. The judgment in Rajendra Kumar Meshram, not having referred to these earlier judgments of a larger strength binding upon it, cannot be said to have declared the law correctly. As a result thereof, the impugned judgment of the High Court is right in its conclusion on this point also. [Paras 68, 71][247-D; 249-H; 250-A-C] Rajendra Kumar Meshram v. Vanshmani Prasad Verma (2016) 10 SCC 715 : [2016] 9 SCR 74 – held not correct law.