M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pathrala, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. The Respondent filed an election petition before the prescribed authority challenging the election of the Petitioner. He raised number of grounds, but the one with which this petition is concerned relates; to the recounting of votes. The prescribed authority made three exercises in that regard and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had obtained 924 votes and the Respondent 861 votes. Thus the result of the election petition went in favour of the Petitioner. The Respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who again went into the exercise to discover which votes due to the Respondent had wrongly been declared invalid and which in the like manner were declared invalid for the Petitioner. This exercise, however, was confined to the polling in booth No. 3 as the counsel for both the parties by suitable statements before the Additional District Judge confined themselves to the recount of polling of that booth and conceded recounting qua other booths letting that remain unchallenged. On such recounting the Additional District Judge held that the Respondent had secured 942 votes and the Petitioner 932 votes. On such result the election of the Petitioner was upset and in his place the Respondent was declared elected. This has given rise to the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Petitioner challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, which is Annexure P -2 to the petition.
(2.) The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that 15 votes have wrongly been calculated in favour of the Respondent because those votes though bearing the official stamp do not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer. In order to appreciate this action, the finding as such recorded by the Additional District Judge needs specific attention: Similarly, if 15 votes polled in favour of Harjit Singh were stamped by the Presiding Officer, but he forget to put his signatures, alongwith the stamps on these 15 votes, fault was not of Harjit Singh. These 15 votes bear the stamp of the Presiding Officer, but not his signatures and where omission to sign is of the Presiding Officer, candidate cannot be allowed to suffer. Votes stamped, but not signed by the Presiding. Officer, do not fall in any of the three categories under Rule 34 aforesaid. For this reason, 15 unsigned votes of Harjit Singh have to be taken as valid votes. As a result of recount by the Presiding Officer on 4 -9 -1984 and recount of votes polled by Harjit Singh in Booth No. 3, conducted by this Court on 4 -10 -1985, and the discussion made, factual position that finally emerges is that Harjit Singh polled 861 plus 6, plus 5 plus 15 plus 55, equal to 942 votes, while valid votes polled by Thakar Singh Respondent were 924 plus 6 plus 1 (printing mistake) equal to 932 votes, thus Harjit Singh polled ten more valid votes then Thakar Singh Respondent. Rule 34 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to at the Rules) concededly has no applicability to these 15 votes. Rule 16, however, has some bearing that there can be an official mark on a ballot -paper. For the purpose, the Director may direct that before any ballot -paper is delivered to the voter at the polling station, it shall be marked with such official mark as may be specified in this behalf and the official mark so specified shall be kept secret. The stamp of the Presiding Officer was perhaps such official mark as conceived in Rule 16 of the Rules. There is however, no requirement that the ballot -paper shall be signed by the Presiding Officer. No other provision has been pointed out to me where -under it is incumbent on the Presiding Officer to sign a ballot -paper. Thus the view taken by the Additional District Judge in giving benefit of 15 votes to the Respondent on the ground that the Respondent had not to suffer for the inaction of the Presiding Officer in not signing the ballot -papers seems to be unexceptionable.
(3.) Mr. Mann has than made an attempt to say that other votes which have been added in favour of the Respondent deserve to be rejected. The argument is one in despair. The finding recorded by the Additional District Judge is that 55 votes bore a printing mark and was not a mark from which any particular voter could be identified, attracting rejection under Rule 34 of the Rules. Double stamps on six votes of Respondent and double signatures on five votes of the Respondent were held by the Additional District Judge to be errors of the Presiding Officer for such like errors had also been committed in the case of the Petitioner. He too was given the benefit of those votes. Nothing worth the name could be suggested by Mr. Mann, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to how such view of the Additional District Judge could be termed in any manner unreasonable or illegal. Thus on this aspect of the case also, no fault could be found with the order of the Additional District Judge, more so in a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.;