HARIKRISHNA CHANDULAL TRIVEDI Vs. SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 8-12-1997 by the respondent no. 5 - State of Gujarat and for a direction to the respondents no. 1 and 2 to carry out the process of calculation of votes de-novo after declaring the said disputed ballot paper, appearing at Exh. 'A' to the petition, as invalid and void.

(2.) The petitioner is the head of the Chemistry Department in the Sardar Patel University - respondent no. 1. The petitioner being the head of the Chemistry Department of the respondent no. 1 has been designated as Ex-Officio Member of the Senate of the Respondent No. 1 - Sardar Patel University.

(3.) The petitioner along with the respondents no. 3 and 4 contested election of Syndicate of the respondent no. 1 which was scheduled on 29-3-1997. In all 113 voters participated in the election and out of them three votes were declared as invalid. 110 votes were found as valid votes and they were calculated on the preferential system of voting. Statute 128 of the Sardar Patel University, requires to determine, in first place, the quota of first preference, which the candidates contesting the said election were required to muster. Accordingly, as per formula evolved for the purpose of determining the said quota, said 110 votes which were declared valid votes for counting, were divided by the figure of 3 and 37 votes were required as first preference votes for declaration as elected. The respondent no. 3 got 47 votes first preference votes. While the petitioner got 35 first preference and the respondent no. 4 got 28 first preference votes and the respondent no. 3 was declared as elected to the syndicate of the respondent no. 1 as a member thereof. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the proceeding for the second round of counting for the purpose of determining as to who is to be declared as elected between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, as per the formula evolved for preferential system of voting, number of surplus votes standing to the credit of the respondent no. 3, being the elected candidate, were required to be determined in the first place. As the respondent no. 3 secured in all 47 first preference votes as against quota of 37 votes, 10 votes were declared as surplus votes. It was found that out of said 47 preference votes in all 7 votes other than first preference awarded to the respondent no. 3 as a result thereof, the said 7 votes were declared nontransferable votes. 40 ballots papers out of said 47 votes were having second preference awarded to either the petitioner or the respondent no. 4, the same came to be declared as transferable votes to be taken into consideration for the purpose of proceeding with the counting of second preference votes. It was found that 35 ballots out of 40 transferable votes were having second preference were awarded to the respondent no. 4 and 5 ballot papers having second preference allocated to the petitioner. The value of 35 preference votes given to the respondent no. 4 as well as value of 5 preference votes awarded to the petitioner were to be determined. Thus, the value of second preference votes was considered in the following manner.