and un-equivocal act was the filing of a nomination paper as a candidate on 1-2-1971 at Rae Bareily. I may mention here that, according to the findings of the learned Judge himself, the question of the Prime Minister holding herself out as a candidate for the Rae Bareily constituency became quite immaterial after 25-1-1971, and on the findings I have reached above, the whole question becomes unimportant. However, I will indicate some authorities which the learned Judge himself had noticed. 454. In S. Khader Sheriff v. Munnuswami Gounder, (1955) 2 SCR 469 at p.473 = (AIR 1955 SC 775 at p. 777). this Court said (at p. 473 of SCR) = (at p. 777 of AIR): “When therefore, a question arises under Section 79 (b) whether a person had become a candidate at a given point of time, what has to be seen is whether at that time he had clearly and unambiguously declared his intention to stand as a candidate, so that it could be said of him that he held himself out as a prospective candidate. That he has merely formed an intention to stand for election is not sufficient to make him a prospective candidate because it is of the essence of the matter that he should hold himself out as a prospective candidate.” 455. In J.P. Rawat v. Krishna Dutt Paliwal, (1959) 20 Ele LR 443 at p. 463 (All) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (V. Bhargava and J.N. Takru. JJ.). following the decision of this Court in S. Khader Sheriff's case (1955) 2 SCR 469 = (AIR 1955 SC 775) (Supra) said (at p. 463):“The determining factor, therefore is the decision of the candidate himself, not the act of other persons or bodies adopting him as their candidate.” 456. In Haji Abdul Wahid v. B. V. Keskar, (1960) 21 Ele LR 409 (All) it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High court (R.N. Gurtu and S.N. Dwivedi, JJ.): “(i) that the purchase of the nomination forms and voters lists, could not amount to holding out as a candidate; (ii) the arranging of public meetings by the officials and the respondent's moving about in the constituency on the 15th and 16th could not by themselves amount to a holding out by the respondent as a prospective candidate on those days in the absence of evidence to show that the respondent had utilised those meetings and tours for the purpose of making utterances of an electioneering character.” 457. In K.K. Mishra v. Banamali Babu, 38 Ele LR 451 at p. 475 = (AIR 1968 Orissa 200 at p. 205) the Orissa High Court. relying upon the following observations of this Court in S. Khader Sheriff's case (AIR 1955 SC 775) (Supra), held that a holding out within the meaning of Section 79(b) must be by declaration of the candidate to an elector or to the electorate in a particular constituency and not to others: “It may be that the holding out which is contemplated by that section is to the Constituency: but if it is the Central Committee that has to decide who shall be adopted for election from the concerned constituency any declaration