who is contesting the election from Amethi Parliamentary Constituency and Shri Baiznath Kureel who is contesting the election from Ram Sanehi Parliamentary Constituency, but they are not available. You are, therefore, requested to write the above letter to the District Election Officer positively so that the election work of all the three Parliamentary Constituencies which is going on, on behalf of District Congress Committee, may not suffer". On February 25, 1971 Yashpal Kapur addressed a letter to the District Officer Rae Bareli stating that the 23 vehicles in question had been taken by the District Congress Committee Rae Bareli for the three Parliamentary constituencies of Rae Bareli, Amethi and Ram Sanehi Ghat. The District Officer was requested to release the 23 vehicles without delay. Yashpal Kapur also enclosed with that letter the note of Dal Bahadur Singh. The 23 vehicles, it would appear, were thereafter released by the District Election Officer. The appellant, in para 17(b) of her written statement, admitted that those 23 vehicles were used by the District Congress Committee Rae Bareli for election work in the three Parliamentary constituencies of Rae Bareli, Amethi and Ram Sanehi Ghat. The High Court, in not accepting the case of the respondent in respect of the 23 vehicles, observed that there was nothing to show that the above mentioned vehicles had been obtained on hire or were obtained gratis. There was also, according to the High Court, no cogent material to show that the said vehicles had been engaged and used in connection with election work of the appellant. 243. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, while assailing the finding of the High Court, has submitted that, as five out of the seven Assembly constituencies in Rae Bareli district were in Rae Bareli Parliamentary constituency, five-seventh of the expenses incurred on the said 23 vehicles should be added to the election expenses of the appellant. I find it difficult to accede to the above submission because of the paucity of the material on record. There is no cogent evidence to show that the 23 vehicles in question were used for the election of the appellant. It is no doubt true that the said 23 vehicles were used by the District Congress Committee Rae Bareli for election work in the three Parliamentary constituencies, viz, Rae Bareli, Amethi and Ram Sanehi Ghat. The record is, however, silent on the point as to what extent they were used in Rae Bareli Parliamentary constituency. One can in the above context visualise three possibilities: (i) As the appellant, who was the Prime Minister of the country, was contesting from Rae Bareli constituency, the District Congress Committee concentrated its attention on that constituency and used the 23 vehicles mostly for the election work in that constituency. (ii) As the appellant had a mass appeal the District Congress Committee office-bearers thought that the Rae Bareli constituency was very safe and, therefore, concentrated attention on the other two Parliamentary constituencies and used the 23 vehicles mostly for those two constituencies.