R. Dayal, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Trilok Chand the petitioner and Shanti Prasad respondent No. 2 were candidates for election to a seat in Ward No. 2 of the Municipal Board, Hapur. Shanti Prasad was declared elected as he secured 730 votes as against 729 secured by the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner then filed an election petition challenging the election of Shanti Prasad. The Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that one vote cast in the name of Ram Chandra was wrongly and improperly admitted and that therefore each of the two candidate, actually secured an equal number of votes, namely 729. The Election Tribunal further came to the conclusion that it had power in such circumstances to decide the issue by lot and to declare that candidate elected in whose favour the lot was drawn. A lot was drawn accordingly, and it was in favour of Shanti Prasad. The Tribunal therefore declared Shanti Prasad duly elected. It is this order which Trilok Chand, the petitioner, desires to be quashed.
(3.) The main contention of the petitioner is that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the result of the election by drawing lots and that it ought, in the circumstances, to have directed lots to be drawn by the Returning Officer. The powers of an Election Tribunal are to be found in Sec. 24 of the Municipalities Act, which, so far as is relevant, provides that: "24 (1). Unless it is otherwise provided by rule made in this behalf the Election Tribunal shall have the same powers and privileges as a judge of a civil court, ................. (2) .................... Sec. 25 of the Act is: "25 (1) If the Election Tribunal after making such enquiry as it deems necessary finds in respect of any person whose election is called in question by a petition, that his election was valid, it shall dismiss the petition as against such person and may award costs at its discretion. (2) If the Election Tribunal finds that the election of any person was invalid, or that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected, it shall either - (a) declare a casual vacancy to have been created, or (b) declare another candidate to have been duly elected, whichever course appears, in the particular circumstances of the case, the more appropriate, and in either case, may award costs at its discretion.";