BASTIN BABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for resolution in this writ petition is whether a candidate has cast his vote for himself in the elections to the Chairman of a Standing Committee to a local authority. Seldom do we come across instances when uncertainty looms over the candidate's own vote. This is such an occasion when the opposite candidate alleges that his opponent had not voted for himself.

(2.) Petitioner and the 6th respondent are Councillors of Cochin Corporation. Both of them are Standing Committee Members for Education and Sports (for short 'the Standing Committee'). Election to the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee was scheduled to be held on 9/5/2023. Petitioner and 6th respondent were the nominated candidates of the UDF and the LDF, respectively, for the aforesaid election. As per Rule 11 of the the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000 (for short 'the Rules'), a member has to cast his vote by putting the alphabet 'X' on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate whom he intends to vote and thereafter must put a signature and write his name on the reverse side of the ballot paper.

(3.) At the election, one member abstained, and the balance was eight out of the nine members who were eligible to vote. During the counting of votes, the Returning Officer rejected the vote cast by one voter. Thus, the total number of votes counted was 7. The 6th respondent was declared as the elected candidate as he secured 4 votes. Petitioner contends that the 6th respondent had not cast his vote in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore, his vote ought to have been declared invalid. Though, according to the petitioner, objections were raised at the venue of the counting itself, the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the objection and declared the 6th respondent as duly elected. Subsequently, this writ petition has been preferred after obtaining copies of the ballot papers under the RTI Act.