PLACID DOMINIC Vs. PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important issue arises for consideration in this original Petition. As per Rule 41 (1) (b) of the Kerala Panchayats (Election of. Members) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', an elector is to make a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose. Can this instrument be any instrument supplied by the Polling Officer for the purpose of marking vote or it should be the instrument fixed by the election authority? The instrument supplied for marking on the ballot paper is an arrow mark seal. The Polling Officer was supplying that arrow mark seal to the electors for marking on the ballot paper. While so the polling officer supplied the seal, which was to be used for stamping the distinguishing mark on the backside of the ballot papers, to an elector for making the mark on the ballot paper. Can the vote exercised by using the distinguishing mark seal be considered as a valid vote?

(2.) PETITIONER and respondents 2 and 4 to 6 filed nominations for contesting election to Perayam Panchayat held on 23-1-1988. Out of 1005 valid votes polled including the postal vote, petitioners and 2nd respondent secured 486 votes each. Fourth respondent secured 33 votes only. Since petitioner and 2nd respondent got equal number of votes, the result of the election was declared by drawing lots. By so drawing lots, petitioner was declared as elected by there turning officer. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The contention raised by 2nd respondent was that during counting seven votes were declared by the returning officer as invalid against the provisions of law. If those votes were taken as valid, it was contended that 2nd respondent would have succeeded in the election by securing more voles than the petitioner. The rejected ballot papers were produced before the Tribunal. They were marked as Exts. X7 to X7 (f ). The tribunal by order dated 31-10-1990 came to the conclusion that the rejection of one ballot paper, viz. , Ext. X? therein, is unsustainable. Accordingly that ballot paper, Ext. X? was treated as a valid vote polled in favour of 2nd respondent. The result, therefore, is that 2nd respondent has been found to have secured more votes than the petitioner and he was declared elected from ward 8 of Perayam Panchayat. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) THE Tribunal,. on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the mark seen on Ext. X? ballot paper was made with the instrument supplied by the polling officer for that purpose. THE result was that Ext. X-7 was treated as a valid vote polled in favour of 2nd respondent. THEreby 2nd respondent was found to have secured 487 votes as against the petitioner who secured only 486. 2nd respondent was, thus, declared to have succeeded in the election.