“Provided that where any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid in the discharge or ourported discharge of his official duty makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing for to or in relation to any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such arrangements facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.” 99. The proviso aforesaid shows that where persons in the service of the Government in the discharge of official duty make any arrangement or provide any facility or do any act or thing in relation to a candidate, such arrangements and facilities shall not be deemed to be assistance for furtherance of the prospect of the candidate's elecion. Therefore, the service rendered by Government servants for construction of rostrums and arrangement for supply of power for loudspeakers according to the contention of the appellant could not be considered as assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of the appellant. 100. The contentions of the appellant can succeed if the Amendment Acts of 1974 and 1975 are valid. The respondent has challenged the constitutional validity of these Acts. Therefore, that question has to be examined before the appellant's contentions can be answered. 101. The respondent in cross-appeal challenged the findings of the High Court on issue No. 9 and contended that the High Court should have held that the election expenses of the appellant exceeded the limit. The respondent also challenged the finding of the High Court with regard to issue No. 6 and contended that the High Court should have held that the symbol of cow and calf was are ligious symbol and the appellant committed corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (3) of the 1951 Act. The respondent did not press Issues Nos. 4 and 5 which related to distribution of quilts, blankets dhoties and liquor. The respondent also abandoned Issue No. 7 which related to voter being conveyed to the polling stations free of charge on vehicles hired and procured by Yashpal Kapur. 102. The issue pressed by the respondent was that the appellant and his election agent Yashpal Kapur incurred of authorised expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed by Section 77 of the 1951 Act read with Rule 90. The respondent alleged that the election expenses of the appellant, inter alia, were Rs.1,28,700 on account of hiring charges of vehicle Rs.43,230/- on account of cost of petrol and diesel; Rs. 9,900/- on account of pavment made to the drivers of the vehicles. The respondent further alleged that the appellant spent Rs. 1,32,000/- on account of construction of rostrums for public meetings on 1st February, 1971 and 25th February, 1971. The respondent contended that the findings of the High Court should be reversed. 103. The High Court found that the election expenses furnished by the appellant were Rs.12.892.97. The High Court added another sum of Rs. 18,18,503. The three items which were added by the High Court were cost of erection of rostrums amounting to Rs. 16,000/- cost of curred in installation of loudspeaker amounting to Rs. 1,951/- and cost for providing car transport to respondent. No! amounting to Rs. 232.50. The total election expenses found by the High Court came to Rs. 31.976.47 which was below the prescribed limit of Rs.35,000/-