JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Appellate Authority under Section 13-V of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Reference to a few relevant facts is necessary to appreciate the point of law arising for adjudication. Election for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak was held on August 18, 1988. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the candidates for the office of Sarpanch in that election. The number of votes polled in favour of these three contestants was as under : —
———————————————————————————
Votes obtained Votes cancelled Valid Votes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner 1587 26 1561
Respondent No. 3 1585 12 1573
Respondent No. 4 1192 19 1172
-------------- -------------- ------------
4363 57 4306
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent No. 3 was declared elected. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the election of respondent No. 3 before the prescribed authority under the Act. The order of the prescriled authority was upheld on appeal by the Appellate Authority.
3. The principal grouse of the petitioner was that the valid votes polled in his favour were wrongly rejected. The Appellate Authority arrived at the following finding :--
“In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the Returning Officer had rightly rejected the 22 votes cast in favour of Bhim Singh appellant as the same were bearing the signatures of other Presiding Officers order than the Presiding Officers of the relevant booths and as Such the said votes were liable to be rejected under Rule 34(b) of the Rules. Similarly, one vote which was not having the signatures of the Presiding Officer at all and was not having any other distinguished mark, in my opinion, was also liable to be rejected in view of the provisions of Rule 34(b) of the Rules. Furthermore, the remaining 3 votes which were meant for the use for the election of Panches, in my opinion, were also liable to be rejected as the present election pertained to the office of Sarpanch.”
The Appellate Authority held that 22 votes cast in favour of the petitioner were validly rejected since these votes bore signatures of the Presiding Officers other than the Presiding Officers of the relevant booths in which these votes were cast and consequently these votes were liable to be rejected under Rule 34(2) of the Haryana Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules), If these votes were validly rejected, the order of the Appellate Authority is unexceptional.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that these 22 votes polled in favour of the petitioner have been rejected on wholly illegal grounds. In order to appreciate the submission, a brief reference to the relevant rules is necessary. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that where in the Sabha area there is only one polling station, the Returning Officer shall act as Presiding Officer for conducting the poll and if in a Sabha area where there are more than one polling stations the Deputy Commissioner shall appoint a Presiding Officer for each polling station to conduct the poll. The Deputy Commissioner shall also appoint polling officers and polling assistants to assist the Polling Officer. The Presiding Officer shall, in addition to performing any other duties imposed upon him by these rules, be in general charge of all arrangement at the polling station. Rule 16 of the Rules provides that the Director may direct that before any ballot-paper is delivered to a voter at a polling station, it shall be marked with such official mark as may be specified by him in this behalf and the official mark shall be kept secret Rule 34 relates to rejection of votes. It provides that a ballot paper shall be rejected, if (a) it bears any mark or writing by which the voter can be identified (b) in the case, where a direction has been issued under Rule 16 that the ballot paper shall contain an official mark it does not contain an official mark; and (c) the Presiding Officer or the Returning Officer, as the case may be, if satisfied that the ballot paper is spurious or that it has been so damaged or mutilated that its identity as a genuine ballot-paper cannot be established.
5. In the instant case, the ballot-papers were rejected merely on the ground that they did not contain the signatures of the Presiding Officer of the relevant booth.
6. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority cannot be supported in law. Under Rule 15, a Presiding Officer is appointed for a polling station and if in a Sabha area there are more than ore polling stations, the Deputy Commissioner shall appoint a Presiding Officer for each polling station to conduct the poll. The rule does not envisage that a Presiding Officer has to be appointed for a booth. At a polling station for the convenience of the voters more than one booth can be established for smooth polling of the votes. The Presiding Officer is appointed for each polling station; not for each booth. The Appellate Authority has proceeded on the assumption that for each polling booth, a Presiding Officer has to be appointed. This assumption is without any basis. The rejected votes bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer appointed for the polling Station Rule 16 of the Rules provides that the Director may direct that before any ballot-paper is delivered to a voter, at a polling station, it shall be marked with such official mark as may be specified by him in this behalf and the official mark shall be kept secret. Again, official mark has to be affixed on a ballot paper to be delivered to a voter at a polling station. It does not say that for a booth of a polling station, different official mark has to be affixed on the ballot-paper. The petitioner has placed on record the directions issued by the Director of Panchayats for compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules and the direction reads as under :–
“Direct that before any ballot paper is delivered to a voter, at a polling station, its back side shall be signed by the Presiding Officer and marked with Presiding Officer’s seal. ”
In the direction it is again provided that the ballot-paper delivered to a voter shall be signed by the Presiding Officer on its back side and marked with Presiding Officer’s seal. In does not state that there will be a Presiding Officer for a polling booth.
7. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority has given a firm finding that the ballot papers were signed by the Presiding Officer If the ballot-papers were so signed by the Presiding Officer, the statutory requirement had been complied with. These 22 votes were rejected on misconstruction of Rules 14, 16 and 34 of the Rules. These votes ought to have been treated as valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. There was no challenge that 22 ballot papers were spurious. These had been issued to the voters at the polling booths in the course of polling and had been polled. Even if the Presiding Officer had not put his signatures on the ballot-papers issued to the voters before they were issued to them, these cannot be declared invalid Every voter has the right to vote and in the democratic set up prevailing in the country, no person who is entitled to share the franchise can be denied the privilege, nor can the candidate be made to suffer. In Arun Kumar Base v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1311, their Lordships of the apex Court, while interpreting the proviso to Rule 56(2) and Rule 38(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, held thus:–
“Keeping this position in view, we are of the definite view that the present case is one of failure on the part of the Presiding Officer to put his signature on those ballot-papers so as to satisfy the requirement of law The proviso, once it is applicable, has also a mandate that the ballot-papers is not to be rejected. We, therefore, hold that the ballot-papers were not liable to be rejected as the proviso applied and the High Court, in our opinion, came to the correct conclusion in counting these ballot-papers and giving credit thereof to the respondent No. 1.”
Looking to the matter from any angle, these 22 votes had to be treated as valid having been validly polled.
9. As observed earlier, the petitioner had polled 1561 valid votes. 26 votes polled in his favour were cancelled by the Returning Officer, Out of these 26 votes 22 votes have been found to be valid. Adding these 22 votes, the petitioner polled 1583 valid votes. He having polled the highest number of valid votes in the election for the office of Sarpanch ought to have been declared elected.
10. Resultantly, the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Prescribed Authority are set aside and the petitioner is declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Copy of the Judgment be delivered to the petitioner expeditiously.