Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi dated 28 -8 -1957.
(2.) WE think the appeal to be misconceived. The Appellant and the second Respondent were candidates for the office of Up -Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. Twenty -four members of the Gaon Panchayat at were present at the meeting for the purpose of electing the Up Pradhan. R. 22 (2) of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules provides that "The election of Up -Pradhan shall be held by show of hands and by the simple majority system " At the meeting votes were first taken for the second Respondent and twelve members of the Gaon Panchayat voted for him. The members were then called upon to vote for the Appellant, and he obtained thirteen votes. It is not in dispute that one member voted both for the second Respondent and for the Petitioner, and this explains how it came about that twenty five votes were cast. The Returning Officer declared the Appellant to be duly elected, and the second Respondent thereupon filed an election petition in which he challenged the validity of the Appellant's election on various grounds. The Sub Divisional Officer was of opinion that under the Panchayat Raj Rules no member of a Gaon panchayat had more than one vote at the election of an Up -Pradhan, and he accordingly held that each of the two candidates had twelve votes in his favour. R. 22 provides that in such circumstances lots should" be drawn to determine which is the successful candidate, and that as this procedure was not followed the Sub Divisional Officer declared the election to be null and void and directed that a fresh election be held. The Appellant then filed a petition in this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. His contention was that upon a proper construction of R. 22 each elector was entitled to as many votes as there were candidates, and that as there were two candidates in the present case the elector who voted for both candidates was entitled in law to do so. The learned Judge did not accept this argument and he accordingly dismissed the petition. The same contention has been urged before us in appeal, but we are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge was right. Learned Counsel has referred us to R. 19B (4) which provides that: (4) Every elector shall have as many votes as there are contesting candidates, but no elector shall give more than one vote to any one candidate.
(3.) THIS rule, however, forms part of Chapter I -D of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules which deals with the election of members of Gaon Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats. It has in our opinion no application to the election of Up -Pradhans which is governed by the rules to be found in Chapter I -E. That chapter includes R. 22, sub R. (2) of which we have already quoted. The only question, therefore, which we have to determine in this appeal is the meaning of the provision in sub -R. (2) that the election of an Up -Pradhan shall be by show of hands and by the simple majority system. We are of opinion that this rule means that one member shall have one vote and only one vote. The phrases "show of hands" and "simple majority system" are phrases in common use, and neither implies that a voter will have more than one vote. We think that had it been the intention of the Legislature that at the election of an Up -Pradhan the members of the Gaon Panchayat should have more than one vote an appropriate provision would have been made in R. 22 in the same manner in which it has been made in Chapter I -D in respect of certain other elections.;