JUDGMENT
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
(1) This order will dispose of C.M. (M) No. 92 of 1985 and C.M. (M) No. 201 of 1985, which have been filed by Rajbir Singh and Mange Ram respectively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2) PETITIONER. Rajbir Singh and respondent No. 2 Mange Ram were two candidates out of the seven at the election for the office of Pardhan of Gaon Sabha Bharthal of village Bharthal. Petitioner, Rajbir Singh was declared elected having secured 384 votes as against 383 polled in favor of Manga Ram, respondent No. 2.
(3) Mange Ram filed an Election Petition under the provisions of Rule 57 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) challenging the election of Rajbir Singh. It was inter alia challenged by Mange Ram that Rajbir Singh has not secured the majority of valid votes and it was in fact Mange Ram who had secured majority of valid votes in the aforesaid election and therefore Mange Rain is entitled to be declared as Pardhan of Gaon Sabha.
(4) Mange Ram alleged in the election petition that there were two tendered votes cast in the election in dispute and both the tendered votes were cast in his favor and therefore, these should be counted in his favor Mange Ram also alleged that vote cast in the name of voters who were either dead or absent from the village on the date of polling are void votes cast in favor of Rajbir Singh and they are also liable to be excluded from the counting. It was alleged that there was gross failure to comply with the provisions of Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 (No. Iii of 1955) and the rules framed there under. This petition was filed on or about 9thJanuary, 1984 before the prescribed Authority, namely. Additional District Magistrate.
(5) On 14th February, 1984, written statement was filed on behalf of petitioner Rajbir Singh, the returned candidate which. was followed by replication by Mange Ram.
(6) On 1st June, 1984, the prescribed Authority held that. the tendered votes were not to be counted by the Returning Officer and only the Prescribed Authority as an Election Tribunal has the power to count the same. From 16th June, 1984 to 17th August, 1984. Mange Ram examined his evidence in support of tendered votes. On 10th October, 1984, counsel for Rajbir Singh, petitioner herein, made a statement that be has no objection to the opening of tendered votes and their scrutiny by the Prescribed Authority. The Authority accordingly ordered the production of tendered ballot papers for scrutiny on 12th October, 1984.
(7) On 12th October, 1984, two tendered ballot papers were opened and one of the tendered vote was found to be in favor of Mange Ram and other in favor of one Hukam Chand. In this view the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the vote of Mange Ram increased by one and, therefore, be polled votes came to 384. Same were the votes declared in favor of Rajbir Singh i.e. 384. In view of this result the Prescribed Authority found that both have got equal number of votes and he by order dated 12th October, 1984 deducted the Restoring Officer to hold a toss in view of the provisions of Rule 50 of the Rules.
(8) On 20th October, 1984, both the parties filed applications pending the holding of toss and requested the Prescribed Authority to allow them to lead evidence on other pleas taken in the petition by Mange Ram and recriminatory pleas taken by Rajbir Singh in the written statement. Both the parties on these pleas were allowed to lead their respective evidence by the Prescribed Authority. By an order dated 4th April. 1985, the prayer for inspection of ballet papers by Mange Ram as well as by Rajbir Singh was dismissed. The Prescribed Authority also held that after the result of the election was announced, the Returning Officer had become Functus-Officer and accordingly the proceedings for draw of lots are now to be conducted and the same would be held on 10th April, 1985.
(9) It is part of this order of 4th April, 1985 which ed his prayer for inspecting ballot papers which has been imparted by Rajbir Singh in the present petition.
(10) Another Petition has been filed by Mange Ram which is C.M. (M) No. 201 of 1985 and he also challenges the order dated 4th Apri,l, 1985 rejecting the prayer made by him for inspection of ballot papers and also the order whereby he directed that draw of lots could now be conducted by him on 10th April, 1985 and prays that the Authority may be directed to direct holding of fresh election in accordance with the provisions of Rule 60 sub-rule (3) clause (a) or declare Mange Ram as duly elected.
(11) I have had the advantage of hearing Mr. Sapra on behalf of Rajbir Singh and Mr. R. P. Bansal on behalf of Mange Ram.
(12) Mr. Sapra in support of his petition submitted that Rule 57 of the Rules provides for the petition being filed to challenge election to the office of the Pardhan of the Gaon Sabha and the election cannot be called in question except in accordance with election petition on the grounds mentioned in Rule 57. He submits that the ground of improper receipt of votes which ate void is not a ground in the election petition .under Rule 57. He in this connection submits that provisions of Rule 100 (1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of Peoples Act is different from Rule 57.
(13) In the alternative learned counsel, submits that in the election petition no ground was taken as required by Rule 57 (l)(b)(ii). It is submitted that the ground for bogus votes being taken into account is not pleaded in the election petition. He also submits that the tendered votes could not be taken into account by the Prescribed Authority.
(14) Mr. Bansal while opposing the petition of Rajbir Singh in this court submitted that. question of tendered votes being taken into account by the Prescribed Authority cannot be gone into on a petition of Rajbir Singh for the simple reason that the orders dated 10th October, 1984 and 12th October, 1984 base not. been impugned in the petition filed by Rajbir Singh, and in any case the tendered votes were rightly taken into account and could be taken into account only by the Prescribed Authority in view of Rule 43 and this is so held by the Supreme Court also in the case of Wilfred D’Souza vs. Francis Menino Jesus Ferrao : 59 E.L.R. 232(1).
(15) Regarding the plea of Mr. Sapra regarding reception of void votes the name of absent voters and recounting of bellot papers, Mr. Bansal submitted that no case had been made out for the recounting and the Prescribed Authority rightly disallowed it for the simple reason that it had not been established by cogent evidence of the person whose vole was allegedly impersonated and nor was there any conclusive evidence that those votes were actually cast. The evidence of Rajbir Singh in this behalf has been disbelieved as well as insufficient.
(16) It appears to me that the submission made on behalf of Mange Ram that the petitioner Rajbir Singh has not impugned the earlier orders dated 1st June, 1984 nor the proceedings of 10th October, 1984 and/or dated 12th October, 1984 and therefore petitioner Rajbir Singh is not enticed to impugned the consideration of tendered votes by the prescribed Authority, is correct. In fact before the Prescribed Authority. It was conceded by the learned counsel for Rajbir Singh on 10th October, 1984 that he had no objection to the opening of the tendered votes and their scrutiny. In any case the Prescribed Authority rightly followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Wilfred D’souza’s case (supra).
(17) Rule 43 of the Rules is in para material with Rules 42 and 56 sub-rule (6) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 43 of the Rules reads as under. :- “43.Tender votes-if a person representing himself to be a particular elector named on the elector roll applies for the ballot paper after another person has voted as such elector, he shall after duly answering such questions as the Presiding Officer may ask, be entitled to receive ballot paper in form II-D. On receipt of such ballot paper (hereinafter referred to as a tendered ballot paper) the elector shall proceed into the Polling Compartment and after marketing the ballot paper shall place it in an envelope. He shall then stick the envelope and hand it over to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer shall make an endorsement on the envelope containing the name of the elector and his number on the electoral roll and the name of Gaon Sabha and of the polling station, if any and shall set aside the cover in a separate packet, the ballot paper in which shall not be counted. The name of the elector, his number on the electoral roll, the name of the Gaon Sabha area and the distinctive number of the Polling Station, if any, to which the roll relates shall be entered in a list in the form (12) which shall bear the heading “tendered vote list”. The person tendering such ballot paper shall sign his name and address on that list or afflux his thumb impression thereto,”
Rule 42 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 reads as under :- “42.Tenders Votes (i) If a person representing himself to be a particular elector applies for a ballot paper after another person has already voted as such elector, he shall, on satisfactorily answering such questions relating to his identity as the presiding officer may ask, be entitled, subject to the following provisions of this rule, to mark a ballot Paper (hereinafter in these rules referred to as a “tendered ballot paper”) in the same manner as any other elector. (2) Every such person shall, before being supplied with a tendered ballot paper, sign his name against the entry relating to him in a list in Form 15. (3) A tendered ballot paper shall be the same as the other ballot papers used at the polling except that – (a) such tendered ballot paper shall be serially the last in the bundle of ballot paper issued for use at the polling station ; and (b) such tendered ballot paper and its counterfoil shall be endorsed on the back with the words “tendered ballot paper” by .the presiding officer in his own hand and signed by him. (4) The Elector, after making a tendered ballot paper in the voting compartment and folding it, shall, instead of putting it in to the ballot box give it to the presiding officer, who shall place it in a cover specially kept-for the purpose.”
Sub-rule (6) of Rule 56 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 reads as under :- "56.(Counting of votes) (6) Every ballot paper which is not rejected under this rule shall be connoted as one valid vote.Provided that no cover containing tendered ballot papers shall be opened and no such paper shall be counted." (18) While dealing with the aforesaid rules in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in the aforesaid case or Wilfred D'souza (supra), Supreme Court took the view that tendered ballot papers can be taken into account during the proceedings of Election petition but the evidence will have to be led on, the following two points - (1)The person who cast the initial vote as a voter on a particular serial number in the electoral roll was someone other than the genuine voter mentioned at that number. (2)It was such genuine voter who marked the tendered ballot paper.
(19) Mange Ram had led evidence of himself, Ishwanti Devi and one Sukhbir Singh, and it was in the light of this evidence that the counsel appearing for Rajbir Singh conceded for tendered votes being sent for scrutiny and it was in this light that the Prescribed Authority took into account the two tendered votes out of which one was found in favor of Mange Ram. I am, therefore, in agreement with Mr. Bansal that not only Rajbir Singh cannot challenge the proceedings of 1st June, 1984, 10th October, 1984 and 12th October, 1984 but also that the consideration of tendered votes by the Prescribed Authority was in accordance with the authority laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Wilfred D’souza (supra).
(20) It will also be noticed from a bare perusal of the petition filed by Mange Ram that he had specifically taken the ground contained in Rule 57(l)(b)(ii)of the Rules. Reference may conveniently be made to paragraphs 8, 9 and 16 of the Election Petition. In fact, no such plea was taken by Rajbir Singh in his Written statement and no issue was framed, whether the election petition complies with the requirements of Rule 57(1)- (b)(ii) of the Rules and this point is being urged for the first time by learned counsel for Rajbir Singh before this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since I do not find any merit in it, nothing need be said further about it in spite of the fact that the plea was taken in the written statement.
(21) Regarding the grievance of Rajbir Singh about his recriminatory petition being dis-alloWed, it appears to me that appreciation of evidence by the learned Prescribed Authority correct and does not call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution as all the material evidence in that behalf has been scrutinised and it has been found by the Prescribed Authority that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the fact that a bogus voter had cast the vote as alleged by Rajbir Singh and also because there is no averment in the recriminatory part of the written statement alleging gross failure to comply with provisions of the Act or the Rules.
(22) The Prescribed Authority had observed in para 8 of the impugned order. “I am constrained to observe that the petitioner as well as the respondent failed to provide any material particulars in support of their respective allegations in the matter of bogus voting or in relation to alleged malpractices. It has come on record that neither the petitioner nor the respondent made any objection/ challenge during the course of poll; and that the evidence tendered by both the parties is based on I ear-say or post election scrutiny. That being so, I have no hesitation in holding that the pleas taken by each of the party after earlier order dated 12-10-1984 are nothing but an after-thought.”
It was further found,- "THERE is nothing on record to suggest the name of the election agents who were present at the different polling stations whether any objection was raised and what are the number of ballot papers polled by personation." It was further held, "THE allegation made by tile petitioner as well as the respondent on the face of it are vague and it cannot be said that any case for inspection/scrutiny of election documents had been made out." (23) The Prescribed Authority also noticed that the Supreme Court has given a word of caution that a court dealing with the Election petition should not exercise the discretion in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring election to be void. (24) In view of these findings, there is no merit in this submission of Mr. Sapra either. (25) I may now deal with the petition filed by Mange Ram for impugning the order dated 4th April, 1985 and also the direction by the Prescribed Authority for holding a toss in view of equality of votes between Mange Ram and Rajbir Singh.
(26) Assailing on this part of argument of Mr. Sapra, arguments of Mr. Bansal was that Rule 50 of the Rules is applicable only to the Authority (Returning Officer)) and not applicable to the Prescribed Authority while deciding Election petition. The described Authority could not take recourse to Rule 50 of the Rules. He submitted that decision of election on equality of votes on the basis of toss is neither a principle of equity nor of common law and Election Tribunal being a Statutory Authority has only those powers which are specifically conferred on it. There is no such thing as inherent powers of the Election Tribunal in this behalf. In support of his submission, learned counsel for Mange Ram relied upon the observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Xvii (Election Law Reports (1959) 181 at page 189 in the case of Voluswami Thevar v. Raja Nainar and others (2) and the observations of Learned Judge explaining his observations which came in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque and others 10 E.L.R. 216 (1954-55) (3). Mr. Bansal also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Poona and others v. Shankar Narhar Agashe & others, and a decision of Rajagopalan, J. in the case of Govindaswami Chatti v. Vadivelu Naicker and others (1957) I M.L.J., 247(5).
(27) Mr. Sapra, Isamed counsel for Rajbir Singh, however, brought to my notice a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parshuram Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ballia and another, 1980 ALL. L.J. 382 (6). Mani Ram V. Bhagwat Sarup and another Air 1949 Allahabad 50(7) and Trilok Chand V. The Election Tribunal, 1959 Allahabad Law Journal, 203 (8).
(28) I have already reproduced Rule 50 of the Rules reads as under:- “50.Equality of votes-If an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates, and addition of one vote will entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer shall forthwith decide between those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on. whom the lot falls had received an additional vote.”
(29) Rule 50 of Rules reproduced above on its own wording is limited to .be used by the Returning Officer and both. the Presorted Authority who hears Election petitions. Mr. Sapra submits that power of Election Tribunal is co-extensive with the power of the Returning Officer and, therefore, there is no infirmity in this Part of the order of the Prescribed Authority.
(30) There is no doubt that the decision of Allahabad High Court in the. case of Parshuram Singh (supra) and in the case of Trilok Chand (supra) supports the submissions of learned counsel for Rajbir Singh. The basis of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Parshuram Singh’s case (supra) are two (1) decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mani Ram (supra) and the second reason given by Allahabad High Court is that the functioning of the Election Tribunal under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and lor such Municipal Election is that of a Appellate Authority and whatever powers are available to Returning Officer are also available to the Election Tribunal.
(31) It will be noticed that decision in the case of Mani Ram (supra) of the Allahabad High Court in 1949 went on the interpretation of Rule 50 of U.P. Municipal Election Rules. The aforesaid rule is quoted in the judgment at page 51 and reads as under :- “WHERE an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected the determination of the person to whom such one additional vote shall be deemed to have been given shall be made by lot to be drawn in the presence of the District Magistrate and in such manner as he may determine.”
(32) It is clear from that rule that on the wordings of that rule, the power is not referred to as being exercised by the Returning Officer. All that is required is that power of drawing lots will be exercised in the presence of District Magistrate and District Magistrate was not the Returning Officer. Power being general in nature it was held to be applica.ble to the Election Tribunal provided in those rules. I, respectfully agree with the observations of the Division Bench consisting of Malik C.J. and Bind Basni Prasad, J. that if the rule is one like Rule 50 of UP. Municipal Election Rules, it could be utilised by the Returning Officer as wall by the Election Tribunal and/or the civil court, if suit was not barred to challenge an election.
(33) I am afraid, I find difficulty in agreeing with the observations of the learned Division Bench in the case of Parshuram. Singh (supra) decided in 1980 while replying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Mani Ram (supra). In the case of Parshuram Singh (supra) the relevant rule was Rule 21(P) of the rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and that rule provides for a contingency where both the candidates have equal number of votes and in such a situation Nirvachan Adhikari (Returning Officer) is given power to decide between these candidates by lots. Such a rule is different from Rule 50 of the UP. Municipal Election Rules. Learned Judges while deciding Parshuram Singh’s case (supra) expressly disagreed with the view of Pathak, J. in the case of Raj Mangal Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer (1966 Allahabad Law Journal, 279)(9). This case of Raj Mangal Singh (supra) dealt with the power of the Returning Officer under rule 25(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. Pathak, J. compared the provisions of Rule 25 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules with the expressed provisions of Section 102 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and noticed that Rule 25(3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules was limited to giving power of drawing lots only to the Returning Officer and not to the sub-Divisional Officer who was the Tribunal before whom the Election could be challenged by the candidates. Pathak, J. at page 281 observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not such power.
(34) Observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) on which learned Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parshuram Singh (supra) relied upon are as under :- “RULE47(4) is important. It provides that “the decision of the Returning Officer as to the validity of a ballot paper……. shall be final subject to any decision to the contrary ‘Tribunal on the trial of an election petition calling in question the election. Under this provision, the Tribunal is constituted a court of Appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer, and as such its jurisdiction must be co- extensive with that of the Returning Officer, and cannot extend further.”
(35) These observations by Venkatarama Aiyar, J. were explained by learned Judge in the latter case of Veluswami Thevar v. Raja Nainar and others (17 E.L.R. (1959) 181)(10) where the learned Judge at page 193 observed. “THE argument is that if the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is co-extensive with that of the returning officer, then the enquiry before it must be confined to the grounds which were urged before the returning officer. Now, the observations quoted above were made stately with reference to Rule 47, and assuming that they apply to an enquiry under section 100(1)(c),the question still remains what is the jurisdiction of the returning officer in hearing objections to nomination papers? His jurisdiction is defined in Section 36(2), and the Tribunal must, therefore, have jurisdiction to decide all the question which can be raised under that section. The fact that a particular ground which could have been raised was not, in fact, raised before the returning officer does not put an end to his jurisdiction to decide it, and what he could have decided if it had been raised, could be decided by the Tribunal, when raised.”
Earlier Venkatarama Aiyar, J. expressly held at page 189 as under:- “AN election petition is an original proceeding institute by the presentation of a petition under section 81 of the Act. The respondents have a right to file written statements by way of reply to it; issues have to be framed, and subject to the provisions of the Act, the previsions of the Civil Procedure Code regulates the trial of the petition. AlI the parties have the right to adduce evidence, and that is of the essence of an original preceding as contrasted with a proceeding by way of appeal. That being the character of the. proceedings, the rule applicable is that which, governs the trial all original proceedings; that is, it is open to a party to put forward all grounds in support of negation of the claim…….”
Again at page 191, learned Judge observed, "IT is difficult to imagine how the proceedings before the Tribunal can be regarded as in the natural of appeal against the decision of the returning officer." (36) It appears to me that these latter observations of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Veluswami Thevar's case (supra) who was. also the author of the judgment in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) were not brought to the notice of learned Judges of the Division Bench in the case of Parshuram Singh (supra). (37) In Govindaswami Chetti V.Vadivelu Naicker and others, 1957 (1) Madras Law Journal 247, Rajopalan, J. held. "THE Election Commissioner has to decide election disputes under the Municipal law which is a statutory creation and. his powers have to be sought within the four corners of that statute and the statutory rules. He could claim no inherent powers. In deciding election disputes, in cases of equality of votes between the candidates, the Election Commissioner has no power to decide the issue by casting lots as no such power is given to him by the Act or Rules. Supreme Court in the case of University of Poona (supra) In para 21 observed. "DETERMINATION by lot in case of equality of votes is neither a principle of universal application nor is it a common law principle. It is only permissible when there is a specific statutory provision to that effect. In the absence of a statutory provision the method of decision by lot is not resorted to when there is other rational method." Though these observations relate to the decision of the Returning Officer on principle they would apply to any other statutory body like the Election Tribunal which adjudicates upon the validity of election after it is held. (38) In this behalf, observations of the Supreme Court in its latest decision reported as Jyoti Basu and others V. Debi Ghosal and others Air 1982 Sc 893(11) are most pertinent. Para 8 thereof at page 986 reads as under :-- "Aright to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to beelected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute.: there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations' I they. are and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at Common Law nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those rides which the statute makes and applies lt is a special jurisdiction and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on consideration of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election. disputes. Court is put in a straight jacket. Thus the entire .issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and again no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self contained code within which must be found any right claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute."
(39) View of Pathak, J. expressed in the single Bench decision in the case of Raj Mangal Singh (supra) is in accord with the aforesaid view of Chinnappa Reddy, & Pathak, JJ. in the case o.t Jyoti Basu and others (supra) and is also in accord with the later decision of Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in the case of Veluswami Thevar (supra) and also in accord wth the view of the Madras High Court in the case of Govindaswami Chetti (supra). I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Pathak. J. in the case ‘of Raj Mangal Singh (supra) and with the view of Rajagopalan, J. in the case of Govindaswami Chetti (supra) end follow the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Goshal and others, and express my respectful dissent from two two judgments of the Allahabad High Court reported as Parshuram Singh (supra) and Trilok Chand (supra).
(40) It will thus be noticed that there is no power conferred on the Prescribed Authority while deciding election petition to take resort to draw of lots in case of equality of votes in the Rules, There is an alternative method in tact prescribed in Rule 60. sub-rule (3), clause (b), namely, to declare a casual vacancy to have been created.
(41) Therefore, I am constrained to set aside this part of the direction of the Prescribed Authority made in order dated 4th April, 1985.
(42) Mr. Bansal had made similar submissions as were made by Mr. Sapra in relation to rejection of his prayer for inspection of certain ballot papers and for the reasons given while rejecting similar prayer of Mr. Sapra in challenging this part of the order dated 4th April, 1985. I would also reject the submission of Mr. Bansal. The prescribed Authority has not accepted the evidence led in this behalf by Mange Ram as well. Therefore, resort cannot be had to clause (b) of aforesaid sub-rule (3) of Rule 60 of the Rules.
(43) The result is that the order of the prescribed Authority dated 4th April, 1985 to the extent that it directed that proceedings for draw of lots will be conducted by him on 10th April, 1985 is set aside and the petition filed by Mange Ram is partly accepted to this extent and it is directed that on the facts of the case since the prescribed Authority has found equal number of votes in favor of Rajbir Singh and Mange Ram, it is declared that the election of Rajbir Singh, is invalid and a declaration is granted that a casual vacancy has been created in the office of the Pardhan, Gaon Sabha; Bharthal.
(44) Parties are left to bear their own costs since no counsel’s fee certificate has been filed on behalf of Mange Ram.