(2) For the purpose of clause (7) a person shall be deemed to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election if he acts as an election agent of that candidate." 404. It is clear that "the obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure" had to take place either by a candidate or by his agent or by somebody "with the consent of the candidate or his election agent:. Until the candidate had appointed an election agent the action of any other person could not constitute him automatically an agent so that he may by doing something voluntarily succeed in making the candidate vicariously liable for his own actions whether he was or was not a gazetted officer at the time when he committed the act complained of. The question of obtaining assistance through "an agent" or "other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent" could only arise where such a case of obtaining assistance indirectly through others is set up but not otherwise. 405. On issue No. 1 the case set up in paragraph 5 of the petition is: "Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi obtained and procured the assistance of the said Shri Yashpal Kapur for the furtherance of prospects of her election from the constituency aforesaid inasmuch as the said Shri Yashpal kapur was a Gazetted Officer in the service of Government of India when his assistance was obtained and procured ..... The said Shri Yashpal Kapur on the direction of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi organized the electioneering work for her in the constituency during the period commencing from 27-12-1970 .............’’ It is a case of liability resulting from an alleged "direction" given by Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi herself to Shri Kapur. No case of procurement of assistance of Shri Kapur through a third person is set up although the word "procured" is mechanically lifted from Section 123 (7) and used. On issue No 3 the case set up in para 9 of the petition is that both Smt. Indira Gandhi and her election agent. Sh. Kapur “obtained and procured” the assistance of Govt. Officers, but no direction or orders given by anyone are mentioned there Issue No. 1 shows that the case which was put in issue and went on trial was whether the original respondent had herself issued some direction to Shri Kapur. Issue No. 3 shows that what was in issue here was whether the Government officers mentioned there rendered the assistance indicated there "at the instance" of the original respondent or her election agent. The discussion of evidence and findings of the learned Judge, particularly on issue No. 1. show that the learned Judge had almost made out a new case for the election petitioner and accepted it. This was on issue No. 1 whether Shri Kapur had done some acts in circumstances which justify the inference that he was constituted a de facto agent of the Prime Minister even before he was appointed her election agent on 1-2-1971 and on issue No. 3, whether sending round of certain tour programmes with the approval of the Prime Minister in the background of certain long standing instructions of the Comptroller and Audit General read with letters sent by the Government of India. As long ago as 12-1-1959 and 19-11-1969 amounted to "implied" directions by the Prime Minister or her election agent to the State Government to provide the facilities the Govt. officials gave. Now, whenever a case of a liability by