104. With regrd to hiring charge of vehicles the High Court found that the respondent did not examine any with to indicate as to whether the vehicles were used only for party propaganda they were used in connection with election of the appellant. The High Court further found that the documents which were relied on by the respondent did establish that the vehicles had been engaged or used in connection with the election work of the appellant. 105. The respondent repeated into following contentions which had been advanced before the High Court. Dal Bahadur Singh, President District Congress Committee wrote a letter to the District Election Officer intimating that 23 vehicles had been engaged by the District Congress Committee for election work in Rae Bareli, Amethi and Ram Sanehi Ghat constituencies, and therefore, the vehicles should be derequisitioned. Dal Bahadur Singh thereafter wrote a note to Yashpal Kapur and requested that the letter be sent to the District Election Officer to that effect. Yashpal Kapur wrote a letter to the District Election Officer and repeated the prayer contained in Dal Bahadur Singh's letter. It was, therefore, contended that because Yashpal Kapur was the election agent of the appellant and he moved for the derequisition of the vehicles it should be inferred that the vehicles were engaged for the election of the appellant. Yashpal Kapur said that the vehicles were used in the three Parliamentary constituencies. The High Court rightly held that the evidence did not establish that the vehicles had been used for the election work of the appellant. The High Court also correctly found that there was no evidence to show that Yashpal Kapur made any propaganda from the vehicles in any manner for the purpose of the election. 106. With regard to the expenses for the erection of rostrums the respondent contended that the appellant's election expenses should include Rs. 1,32,000/- as the costs for erection of rostrums for the meetings on 1st Febraury, 1971 and the meeting on 25th February 1971. The High Court held that Rs.16,000/- could only be added to the election expenses of the appellant consisting of Rs.6,400/- for four rostrums and Rs.9,600/- for six rostrums. 107. The amount of Rs. 16,000/- which was added by the High Court on account of cost of erection of rostrums cannot be included in the election expenses of the appellant by reason of amendment to Section 77 of the 1951 Act by the Amendment Act, 1975, Explanation 3 has been added as follows:“For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilities provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Cl. (7) of Section 123 in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section.” 108. By the Amendment Act, 1975 a proviso has been added to Section 123 (7) of the 1951 Act to the effect that arrangements made or facilities provided or my act done by a Government servant belonging to the class mentioned there in the discharge of official duty shall not be deemed to be assistance for furtherance of the prospects of that candidates election. All these amendments have retrospective operation. Therefore, the cost of rostrums cannot be added to the election expenses of the appellant. Services rendered by Government servants for the erection of