ANIL DEV SINGH, C.J. - (1.) This appealis directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated April 20, 2004, whereby the writ petition challenging the entire elections to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, 2004 has been dismissed on the ground of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy provided under Rule 34 of the Bar Council of Rajasthan Rules, 1968 (for short, referred to as 'the Rules').
(2.) The appellant is a lawyer practising at Jaipur. He was one of the candidates, who contested the election of the Bar Council of Rajasthan . Polling for the election was held on March 19, 2004. The counting of the votes commenced on March, 29, ,2004. When the writ petition was filed, the counting was still counting. The counting of the First Preference Votes was concluded on April 9, 2004. It is averred in the writ petition that on March 31, 2004, during the counting of ballot papers of Polling Booth No. 26 located at Kama, District Bharatpur, it came to light that alteration and obliterations had been carried out in some of the ballot papers and the original marking of preference were also changed. According to the petition, there was a clear cut evidence of tempering of ballot papers. The appellant and other candidates preferred written objections before the Returning Officer in regard to such ballot papers. Thereupon, the Returning Officer segregated 36 ballot papers and referred to the objections thereto to the Advocate General in consonance with the provisions of Rule 23(3) of the Rules. The objections were consi dered by the nominee of the Advocate General under Rule 23(3) of the Rules. The nominee of the Advocate General opined that all the 36 ballot papers should be counted. While expressing his opinion by a written communication dated April 9, 2004 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), the Returning Officer, observed as follows : "I have examined all the Ballot Papers and sought the report from the Returning Officer also about the Polling at the Polling Station Kaman. According to the Returning Officer, there is no official report of any Booth capturing or alternation at the Poling Station or after the Ballots were cast as per the report of the Polling Officer. In these circumstances, there is no material available on record to believe that the alteration in the disputed Ballot Papers have not been done by the voter himself and in my opinion, the Ballot Papers in which intention of the voter is clearly shown, the same should be taken up for counting."
(3.) Pursuant to the opinion of the nominee of the Advocate General, the disputed ballot papers were counted by the Returning Officer.;