JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) CAN an election be said to be valid in spite of the fact that the symbol allotted to a candidate is not clearly decipherable? This is the short question that arises for decision in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A few facts, as averred in this petition, may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner was a candidate for election as member of the Panchayat Samiti, Naushehra Pannuan in District Amritsar, which is a reserved constituency. The petitioner filed his nomination paper on Sept. 14, 1994. After security etc. different election symbols were allotted to all the six candidates, including the petitioner, on Sept. 20, 1994. The petitioner was allotted the symbol of 'Tractor Trolly'. The elections were held on Sept. 30, 1994. The petitioner secured 1323 votes. As against this respondent Karaj Singh polled 1540 votes. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 was declared as ejected. The petitioner avers that one of the voters conveyed to him that the symbol of 'Tractor Trolley' was not at all visible on the ballot paper. This fact was affirmed when the petitioner went to cast his own vote and found "that in the place of symbol against his name only a black spot is printed and nothing is visible .... " The petitioner claims that he brought this fact to the notice of the Returning Officer by filing an application. However, no action was taken. Accordingly he has filed the present writ petition. He complains that no fair election can be said to have taken place as the symbol allotted to him was not clearly visible. It has been highlighted that 80 per cent of the voters in the block are illiterate persons. They cast their votes by recognising the symbols allotted to different candidates.
(3.) AT the time of preliminary hearing, we had issued notice of motion to the respondents and directed them to produce the ballot papers. In response to the notice, a written statement was filed by Mr. G.S. Brar, the Returning Officer on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. As for Respondent No. 4, it was reported that he had received the summons along with a copy of the petition, but had refused to acknowledge the receipt thereof. Accordingly, we had ordered ex parte proceedings against him. In the written statement filed by the Returning Officer on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 the contents of which have not been verified, it was inter alia averred that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of an election petition. The petitioner's allegation that the symbol was not visible on the ballot paper was denied. According to the respondent, the fact that the petitioner had polled a good number of votes shows that the ballot paper has been correctly printed. On this basis, it was stated that the election was fair and proper.;