authorized by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section. Provided ... ... ... ... ... Explanation 2. – For the purposes of Explanation 1, ‘political party’ shall have the same meaning as in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, as for the time being in force.’’ The above amendment in Section 77 had a bearing on the allegation which was the subject-matter of issue No. 9. The respondent filed writ petition challenging the validity of the amending Act. 164. The High Court decided issued 2, 4, 6 and 7 in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. Issues 5, 8 and 10 were found in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. On issues No. 9 the finding of the High Court was that the total amount of expenditure incurred or authorized by the appellant or her election agent, together with the expenditure proved to have been incurred by the party or by the State Government in connection with the appellant’s election amounted Rs. 31,976.47 which was sufficiently below the prescribed limit of Rs. 35,000. The appellant prescribed limit of Rs. 35,000. The appellant as such was held not guilty of any corrupt practice under Section 123 (6) of the Act. As the respondent was found to have failed to prove that the expenses of the appellant or her election agent, together with the expenses found to have been incurred by the political party and the State Government in connection with the appellant’s election proceeded the prescribed limit, the High Court held that no ground had been made out for inquiring into the validity of the 1974 amending Act. The writ petition filed by the respondent was accordingly dismissed. 165. On additional issue No.2, the finding of the High Court was that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from the Rae Bareli Parliamentary constituency on December 29, 1970. Issue No.3 was decided by the High Court against the appellant. It was held that the appellant obtained the assistance of the officers of the U.P. Government, particularly the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, the Executive Engineer PWD and the Engineer Hydel Department for construction of rostrums and arrangement of supply of power for loudspeakers in the meetings addressed by her on February 1. 1971 and February 25, 1971 in furtherance of her election prospects. The appellant, as such, was found guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123 (7) of the RP Act. On additional issue No.3, the High Court found that Yashpal Kapur continued to be in the service of the Government of India till January 25, 1971, which was the date of the notification regarding the acceptance of Yashpal Kapur's resignation. The High Court referred to the fact that according to the notification resignation of Yashpal Kapur had been accepted with effect from January 14, 1971 and observed that the order accepting the resignation was passed on January 25, 1971 and till that order was passed, the status of Yashpal Kapur continued to remain that of a Government servant despite the fact that when that order was passed it was