Committee and used by the candidate, the amount spent by the Congress Committee could not be taken to be included in the expenditure of the candidate’s election expenses (See Hans Raj v. Pt. Hari Ram. (1968) 40 El LR 125 (SC). 117. Expenses incurred by a political party in support of its candidates have been held by this Court not to fall within the mischief of Section 123 (6) of the 1951 Act (See Shah Jayantilal Ambalal v. Kasturilal Nagindas Doshi, (1969) 42 Ele LR 307 (SC). In Rananjaye Singh v. Baijanath Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 671 = (AIR 1954 SC 749) this Court pointed out that expenses must be incurred or authorised by the candidate or his agent. In that case the Manager, the Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars and their peons were alleged to have worked for the election of the appellant. This Court held that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of extra expenditure was not by the candidate or his election agent. The extra men employed and paid were in the employment of the father of the appellant. This Court said that the position in law could not be at all different if the father had given those employees a holiday on full pay and they voluntarily worked in connection with the election of the appellant. Persons who volunteer to work cannot be said to be employed or paid by the candidate or by his election agent. 118. In Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh, (1970) 1 SCR 530 = (AIR 1970 SC 530) the appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that the Maharaja and the Rajmata of Gwalior had helped the respondent’s election in a number of waves and acted as his agents and the respondent incurred considerable expenditure which exceeded the limit. This Court found that assuming the expenditure was incurred by the Maharaja and the Rajmata of Gwalior for the purpose of canvassing votes, in the absence of any evidence to show that the Maharaja and the Rajmata acted as election agents or that the expenditure was authorised by the respondent. It was not liable to be included in the election expenses. 119. On behalf of the respondent it was said reliving on the decision of this Court in Kanwar Lal Gupta’s case, AIR 1975 SC 308 (supra) that if the candidate takes advantage of expenditure incurred by the political part in connection with the election of the candidate or participates in the programme of activity or fails to disavow the expenditure the candidate cannot escape the rigour of the ceiling by saving that he has not incurred the expenditure but his political party has done so. Expenditure incurred by a political party in connection with the election of the candidates of the party is not a part of the election expenses of the candidate. Similarly, participation in the programme of activity organised by a political party will not fall within the election expenses of the candidate of the party. A candidate is not required to disavow or denounce the expenditure incurred or authorised by the political party because the expenditure is neither incurred nor authorised by the candidate. One can disavow what would be ascribed to be incurred or authorised by one. In the case of expenses of a political party there is no question of disavowing expenditure incurred or authorised by the political party. 120. The decision in Kanwar Lal Gupta’s case AIR 1975 SC 308 (supra) was based on an observation extracted from the decision of this Court in Megh Raj Patodia v. R.K. Birla (1971) 2 SCR 118 = (AIR 1971 Sc 1295). In Megh Raj Patodia’s case (supra) the allegations were that the respondent had been put up by one of the wealthiest business houses in the country which owned or controlled a large number of companies and during the election campaign vast material and