- (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of an Election Tribunal.
(2.) ELECTIONS for membership of the Municipal Board, Konch, district Jalaun, were held on 26-10-1953. The Municipal Board was divided into a number of wards, and I am concerned in the present petition mainly with ward No. 7. From this ward three members were to be elected and there were a number of candidates, including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner and respondent No. 2, namely, Ambika Prasad, secured equal number of votes, and the lots, therefore, had to be drawn. The draw went in favour of the petitioner and he was declared elected on 28-10-1953. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had secured a higher number of votes and they were, therefore, also declared to have been duly elected. Respondent No. 2 then filed an election petition, which has ended in his favour. The petition was moved on a number of grounds, but I am concerned only with one of them, namely, the finding of the Election Tribunal concerning the validity of the votes cast by three persons, namely, raghu-nath Prasad, Gajraj and Gafoor Ahmad. Gajraj and Gafoor Ahmad had voted in favour of respondent No. 2 and their votes have been held to have been wrongly rejected by the Returning officer. Raghunath Prasad voted in favour of the petitioner and the Election Tribunal has held that the Returning Officer wrongly accepted his vote. In the present petition the decision of the election Tribunal concerning the validity of the votes of all the three persons, mentioned above, has been challenged before me.
(3.) I may first dispose of the contentions with respect to the vote cast by Gafoor Ahmad. His vote, cast in favour of respondent No. 2, was rejected by the Returning Officer with an endorsement "cumulative. Rejected". ^ This expression means that Gafoor Ahmad had cast more than one vote in favour of the same candidate and, therefore, one of the votes cast by him was being rejected. The contention of respondent No. 2 before the Election Tribunal was that Gafoor Ahmad had really cast three votes in favour of three different candidates one in favour of respondent No. 2, one in favour of respondent No. 3 and one in favour of respondent No. 4. The Election Tribunal has accepted this contention of respondent No. 2 mainly on the ground that three votes cast by gafoor Ahmad were put separately in three packets containing the votes cast in favour of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively, and the forms Nos. 15 and 16 prepared by the returning Officer also show that one of the votes was cast in favour of respondent No. 2.;