(1.) An unfortunate election dispute between two Advocates of this Court practising in the City of Mysore, who contested for one seat of the Senate of the University of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') from the constituency of regitered grnduates in law, has arisen for determinati 'n, fcr' which purpose, it is necessary to notice, in the first instance, the facts that are not seriously in dispute.
(2.) In response to the calendar of events issued by the Registrar of the University, who was also the Returning Officer, on 1-7-1980 (Annexure, A), the petitioner, respondent 3 and 4, being registered graduates, filed their nominations for election to the senate from the 'Law Constituency' before the appointed date and time. But, the pull to the said Constituency only was nott held on 2-8-1980, in obedience to an interim order made by this Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No, 4, and the same was held on 24-8-1980.
(3.) The method of voting adopted was the single transferable vote system and the counting took place on 26-8-1980 in the presence of the candidates or their agents that were present. As none of the candidates secured the required minimum number of votes in the first counting, the process of transfer was resorted to, in which respondent No. 3 secured 287 votes as against 286 votes secured by the petitioner. In that view, the Returning Officer declared respondent No. 3 as duly elected to the senate from the 'Law Constituency'.