" The appellant 's case is that questioning something which has happened before a candidate is declared elected is not the same thing as questioning an election, and the arguments advanced on his behalf in support of this construction were these: (1) That the word "election" as used in article 329 (b) means what it normally and etymologically means, namely, the result of polling or the final selection of a candidate; (2) That the fact that an election petition can be filed only after polling is over or after a candidate is declared elected, and what is normally called in question by such petition is the final result, bears out the conten tion that the word "election "can have no other meaning in article (b) than the result of polling or the final selec tion of a candidate; 226 (3) That the words "arising out of or in connection with" which are used in article 324 (1) and the words "with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with" which are used in articles 327 and s28, show that the fram ers of the Constitution knew that it was necessary to use different language when referring respectively to matters which happen prior to and after the result of polling, and if they had intended to include the rejection of a nomina tion paper within the ambit of the prohibition contained in article S29 (b) they would have used similar language in that article and (4) That the action of the Returning Officer in reject ing a nomination paper can be questioned before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for the follow ing reason: Scrutiny of nomination papers and their rejec tion are provided for in section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.