JAGAT NARAYAN, J - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging a decision of Munsif Sikar acting as a Tribunal under R. 78 of the Rajas-than Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 dismissing his election petition challenging the election of Gomaram respdt. No. 1 to the office of Sarpanch.
(2.) POLLING was fixed for 7. 12. 60. The times fixed for members of different wards to cast their votes were as follows - Wards Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - 8 a. m. to 11 p. m. Wards Nos. 4, 5 and 6 - 11 a. m. to 2 p. m. Wards Nos. 7 and 8 - 2 p. m. to 4 p. m. According to the finding of the Tribunal, shortly before 11 a. m. a complaint was made on behalf of the petitioner to the presiding officer that a polling officer named Surajmal was showing undue favour to Gomaram by illegally marking the ballot papers of illiterate voters himself instead of allowing them to do so. On this complaint the Returning Officer removed Surajmal from his post. The supporters of the petitioner were so much agitated on account of the conduct of Surajmal that the Returning Officer apprehended that a breach of peace might take place. He accordingly adjourned the poll so far as voters of wards No. 4, 5, and 6 were concerned to 13. 12. 60 and sent for further reinforcements of police force. The polling by voters of wards Nos. 7 and 8 took place between 2 p. m. and 4 p. m. as already fixed. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. One is that it was not open to the Returning Officer to adjourn the poll so far as voters of wards Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were concerned and to continue it so far as voters of wards Nos. 7 & 8 were concerned. I am unable to accept this contention. Rule 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 runs as follows - "adjournment of poll.- (1) The Returning Officer may, in emergencies such as are likely to disturbance of the public peace close the poll and announce an adjournment thereof to a subsequent day. (2) The circumstances leading to such closure and adjournment shall be reported by the Returning Officer forthwith to the Collector. " The postponment of poll by voters of wards Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to another day was reasonable in the circumstances of the present case. By the time the polling by voters of wards Nos. 7 and 8 was commenced, the Returning Officer expected that police force will be reinforced and he will be able to maintain order at the polling station with the help of the additional police. The postponement of part of the poll is not prohibited under rule 37. I am accordingly unable to hold that there was violation of any mandatory provision so as to vitiate the election on this ground. The next contention is that piecemeal voting for the office of Sarpanch was not legal. Here again there is no prohibition against it in the Act or the Rules and as held by me above the circumstances justified adjournment of part of the poll. The election was accordingly not vitiated on account of this defect. There is no evidence on record to prove that the election was materially affected as a result of any act on the part of Surajmal or on the part of the Returning Officer. It has not been proved affirmatively that Surajmal actually wrongly marked any ballot paper or that he marked more than one ballot paper. Nor is there any evidence on record to show how many voters of wards Nos. 7 and 8 who intended to vote for the petitioner left the polling station under the impression that the whole of the poll had been adjourned. The petitioner received only 97 votes whereas the respondent received 458 votes. I accordingly hold that there is no ground for interference with the decision of the Tribunal. I therefore dismiss the writ petition. . ;