The petitioners, who are the elected members of Annamanada Grama Panchayat, have come up before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 resolution pertaining to the constitution of development standing committee of the aforesaid Panchayat and all other proceedings pursuant to it.
2. The first petitioner was elected from Ward No.VII and the second petitioner was elected from Ward No.XIV of respondent Panchayat. By winning 10 seats out of 18, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) came into power and one T.K.Satheesan became the President. As per Kerala Panchayath Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 (for short, the Rules), various standing committees are to be constituted and the power of appointing standing committees is vested with the Returning Officer appointed by the State Election Commission. Accordingly, the State Election Commission has appointed the Sub Registrar, Irinjalakuda, as the Returning Officer. Election was scheduled to be held on 18.11.2010.
3. The number of members in each standing committee was fixed on the basis of the total strength of members of the panchayat. The strength of development standing committee was fixed at '4'. Out of this, one seat was reserved for woman. In the development standing committee, one Sindhu Jayan from LDF was elected to the reserved seat and election was conducted for the remaining 3 seats. Four persons contested the elections. One among them was the second petitioner, who was an L.D.F candidate. The other three were Mr. K. K. Ravi Namboodhiri (UDF), Mr. P. D. Jose (UDF) and Mr. K. A. Baiju (LDF). The manner of electing members to the standing committee was by casting single transferable vote. All the members of the panchayat have got the right to cast vote. On receipt of ballot papers issued by the Returning Officer, each member has to cast vote on priority basis, as laid down in Rule 8(2) of the Rules.
4. The petitioners allege that the Returning Officer did not conduct the election properly, in accordance with law, and that the ballet papers issued by him contained corrections. Though complaints were made, the same were not considered. While mentioning the priority, the first petitioner marked priority in figures only. During counting, the Returning Officer rejected the vote stating that the first petitioner ought to have written priority in Malayalam words. According to the petitioners, the said ruling of the Returning Officer is illegal.
5. The petitioners point out that on account of that the second petitioner lost the benefit of first petitioner's vote. Immediately, the first petitioner filed complaint to the Returning Officer. However, he did not accept it. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Ext.P1 representation before the second respondent by fax. Later, the first respondent accepted the complaint. Copy of the complaint is produced and marked as Ext.P3. However, he did not attend to it and published the result on the same day itself, as evident from Ext.P4. The petitioners further point out that had the first petitioner's vote been accepted, the second petitioner would have found a place in the committee. Thereafter, the second petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation on 20.11.2010 complaining the illegality. It did not evoke any positive response. It is with this background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
6. The second respondent, who entered appearance, filed a statement that the Returning Officer has to follow the provisions contained in Rule 8(4) of the Rules.
7. Arguments have been heard.
8. The fact that the petitioners were the members of the Annamanada Grama Panchayat is admitted. It is also admitted that the second petitioner contested the election to the development standing committee of the panchayat. The first petitioner exercised her vote by giving priority in figures. However, her vote was rejected by the first respondent Returning Officer on the ground that she had not written the priority in Malayalam words.
9. Rule 8 of the Rules deals with the manner of recording votes, counting of votes and declaration of result in elections which reads as under:
(1) The Chairman of the meeting shall issue a ballet paper in Form No.1 appended to these rules to every elected member of a Panchyayat who wishes to vote in the election to a Standing Committee and the ballot paper shall contain the names of all the contesting candidates.
(2) Each member shall, immediately on receipt of the ballot paper, proceed to the place set apart for voting and record the vote by writing legibly on the ballot paper the priority the priority given by him in the order of one, two, three and so on against the names of each number of candidates as may be elected, and after putting his signature and writing the name on the reverse of the ballot paper, fold the ballot paper and put it into the ballot box kept at a place fully visible to the Chairman.
(3) The Chairman shall, on completion of the voting, open the ballot box in the presence of the members take out the ballot papers and count the priority votes obtained by each candidate.
(4) A ballot paper on which vote has been marked for none of the candidates or on which vote has been marked giving same priority to more than one candidate or the reverse of which does not bear the name and signature of the member who voted, shall be rejected and the rejected ballot papers shall be kept in separate cover.
(5) Result of the election shall be declared in accordance with the following procedure namely:-
(a) On counting the votes, the candidates, equal in number of that of vacant seats, securing the highest number of first priority votes shall be declared elected;
(b) On counting the votes under clause (a), when the first priority, votes recorded to two or more candidates are equal and one or more members from among them have to be elected, the second priority votes recorded shall be added to the first priority votes secured by the respective candidates and the candidate or candidates who have secured the highest number of such votes shall be declared elected;
(c) On counting the votes under clause (b), when the total priority votes are equal for two or more candidates and one or more members are to be elected from among them the third priority votes recorded shall, be added to the first and second priority votes secured by the respective candidates and the candidate or candidate securing highest number of such votes shall be declared elected.
(d) On counting the votes under clause ©, when the total priority votes are equal for two or more candidates and one or more members are to be elected from among them, the counting of vote shall be conducted as given under the foregoing clauses and such counting shall be continued till members to all the vacant seats are elected'
(e) On counting the votes under clause (d), if the total votes to more than one candidate comes to be equal while only one seat remains vacant, lot shall be drawn in the meeting for filling up of the post and the person whose name is drawn first from among the said candidates shall be declared elected.
Note:- While counting priority votes under the above sub-rule, total votes secured by a candidate shall be calculated in the order that the number of first priority votes secured as zero if no first priority vote has been secured and the number of second priority votes secured as zero, if no second priority vote has been secured by the candidate and so on.”
10. The circumstances under which a ballot paper could be rejected is stated in Rule 8(4). Marking of priority in Malayalam words is not envisaged by the statute at all. What is required is only writing of priority legibly on the ballot paper in the order of one, two, three and so on against the name of each number of candidates as may be elected. The first respondent does not have a case that the first petitioner has not done so. He has found an extraneous reason to reject the vote of the first petitioner which is prima facie illegal and irregular. The first respondent ought to have followed the aforesaid Rule while considering the vote cast by the first petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 result pertaining to the development standing committee of Annamanada Grama Panchayat is hereby quashed. It is hereby declared that the first petitioner's vote is valid to the election to development standing committee of respondent panchayat. The respondent concerned shall declare the result of the standing committee afresh in the light of what has been stated above without delay.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE