- (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Ratiram against an order of Munsif, Bikaner,, acting as a Tribunal under rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960, refusing to set aside the election of Phusaram respondent as Sarpanch on his election petition. The petition has been contested on behalf of Phusaram.
(2.) ON the ballot papers used for Panchayat elections 8 symbols are printed. Usually the number of candidates contesting an election does not exceed 8. If it exceeds 8 extra symbols are added. If the number of candidates is less than 8 then the part of the ballot paper containing extra symbols is usually cut off. Instructions to do so were issued by the Government to the Returning Officers. The Returning Officer of this Panchayat however did not cut off the extra symbols in holding the election for the office of Sarpanch of this Panchayat. There were only two candidates Ratiram and Phusaram. , but the ballot papers contained 8 symbols. According to the counting made by the Returning Officer Phusaram polled 469 valid votes and Ratiram polled 418 of them. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the election was vitiated because the extra symbols were not torn off. There is no rule laying down that the ballot paper should not contain more symbols than the number of candidates. The Returning Officer did not therefore commit any breach of any rule or any provision of the Panchayat Act. He only did not follow the instructions issued by the Government. This could not have had any effect on the result of the election. The extra six symbols on the ballot paper were quite different from the symbols allotted to the two candidates and even illiterate voters could distinguish between one symbol and another. The presence of extra symbols could not prevent a voter from voting for the candidate for whom he wanted to vote. This contention has therefore no force. The next contention is that the Tribunal erred in holding that Phusaram was able to read and write Hindi within the meaning of sec. 13 of the Panchayat Act. In my opinion Phusaram fulfils the standard laid down in Bega Ram vs. Collector Sikar (l ). Lastly. , it was contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that it was not proved that Phusaram was guilty of corrupt practices. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered within exercise of the powers of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition. . ;