P. Shinmugam, J. 1. This revision challenges the appellate order in an election O.P. Petitioner is the successful candidate for Ward No. 14 in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation election, whose election has been set aside by the Additional District Judge in appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this C.R.P. under Section 115, C.P.C. are as follows : Election to the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation was notified on 19-8-1995. The last date for receipt of the nomination was 27-8-19951 Nomination were scrutinised on 28-8-1995. 30-8-1995 was the last date for withdrawal of the nominations. Election to Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation was held on 23-9-1995. Petitioner was declared elected for Ward No. 14 of the Corporation. The 1st respondent challenged the election before the Election Court/ Principal Munsiff unsuccessfully. On appeal before the Additional District Judge, the order of the Election Court was reversed and petitioner's election was set aside. The appellate Court also declared that the 1st respondent is the returned candidate. The revision is against this order.
3. The allegations in the election petition can be summarised as follows :
(a) The petitioner was a voter in Andoorkonam Grama Panchayat and he was a former elected President of the said Panchayat. While, so, petitioner got his name included in the voters' list of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation without disclosing the entry of his name in the voters' list of Grama Panchayat by filing a false affidavit before the Electoral Registration Officer.
(b) Petitioner filed his nomination suppressing his disqualification and the Returning Officer accepted his nomination in spite of this fact having been brought to the knowledge of the Returning Officer.
4. It was also alleged that the allotment of symbol was without notice to him. However, this point was neither raised nor arise for consideration in this revision.
5. Petitioner filed his written statement contending as follows : He was not a voter of Andoorkonam Grama Panchayat as his name was duly removed from the voters' list. He resigned from the post of President of the Panchayat on 18-8-1995, before the date of election notification. He has been residing in Kannammola Ward of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and is qualified to be registered as a voter. When the voters' list was published in the year 1994 and there was no objection from anybody, it has become final.
6. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned Munsiff framed 5 issues for consideration. The relevant and the main issue is whether the petitioner was disqualified to contest the Corporation Election? The Election Court held that holding the post of a President of a Gram Panchayat is not a disqualification under Section 90 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the' Act'). The Court also found that on 19-8-1995, the date of election notification, petitioner was not a voter in the Panchayat and was not an "ordinary resident" within the area of Panchayat when he submitted his, nomination. The Court held that the Election Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the question whether the petitioner is a voter in the Municipal Corporation in spite of his alleged continuation as a voter in the Panchayat is legal or not. Point No. 1 was answered in favour of the petitioner holding that he was not disqualified under Section 90 of the Act and he had the requisite qualification as prescribed under Section 85 of the Act. The Court further held that the ground under Section 178 to declare the election void has not been established. Ultimately, the election O.P. was dismissed.
7. On appeal by the I st respondent herein, the learned Additional District Judge found that the petitioner was disqualified to be a candidate and not entitled to contest in the election held on 23-5-95 since there is a clear violation of Section 155(1) and (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Ultimately the learned Judge concluded that in view of "that" finding, viz., he was continuing as President and resident of Grama Panchayat and having not resigned from the said post as per the provisions of the Panchayat Act, there is a violation of Section 178(1)(a) and (d)(iv) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, and allowed the appeal. Hence the revision.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents in detail. The revision can be disposed of without going into the legal points raised by the counsel on either side. The short point that arise for consideration is whether the learned Additional District Judge has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. From the facts set out above, the objection raised by the 1st respondent herein was in reference to the petitioner becoming a member of Corporation by suppressing the entry of his name in the Electoral Roll of the Panchayat and on a false declaration before the Electoral Registration Officer. The Additional District Judge did not go into the question of qualification or disqualification set out under Sections 85 and 90 of the Act, but found that the resignation of the petitioner from Panchayat Committee through registered letter is the only mode and it cannot be accepted directly by the Committee on 19-8-95. According to the learned Judge, because of the failure to comply with Sub-section (3) of Section 155(1) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, there was no valid resignation and therefore there is violation of Article 243-V of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is disqualified because of that. It can straightway be stated that to attract Article 243-V of the Constitution of India, disqualification should be by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. There is no disqualification because of failure to submit a resignation letter through registered post and assuming that he was an ordinary resident of Panchayat. Petitioner had stated that he had resigned as the President of the Gram Panchayat which was accepted on 19-8-95 and it took effect from that day. He also sent a letter by registered post which was received on 26-8-95. On the basis of his earlier letter given directly (Ext. X2) which was acted upon, he was deleted from the voters' list of Panchayat on 19-8-95. Section 155(1) of the Panchayat Act enables the Secretary of the Panchayat to receive a resignation letter and it takes effect on its receipt. Section 155(1) is independent of Sub-section (3) wherein another mode of sending it by R.P.A.D. is provided, The provisions cannot be read to mean that resignation letter cannot be given directly at all and it should always be by post. In any event, the question of alleged violation of the provisions of Panchayat Act cannot be relevant for the purpose of considering the declaration of election to be void under Section 178 read with Sections 85 and 90 of the Municipalities Act and on the quuestion of "dual membership" discussed below. The said position that the alleged disqualification under the Panchayat Act is not relevant is accepted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent. His only submission is the alleged act of filing a false declaration in registering as a voter in the Corporation and to say that the petitioner is not legally a voter of the Corporation, is a clear violation. The District Court without considering the main grounds of attack under the election petition and the clear finding of the Election Court in issue No. 1, has misdirected itself on the alleged violation of the Panchayat Act to set aside the election under the Municipalities Act. The learned Judge has further found that the 1st respondent is the returned candidate since he has secured the highest number of votes. Section 179 of the Act enables the Court to declare the election petitioner or any other candidate as duly elected only on two grounds : (a) that the petitioner or the successful candidate received a majorityy of the valid votes; or (b) that, but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by the corrupt practices, the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid voles. Both these conditions are not satisfied in this case. It is not the ease of the Ist respondent that he received the majority of the valid votes. Therefore, for these reasons, the order of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9. However, the learned counsel on either side argued elaborately and the following questions arise for consideration for complete disposal of the revision :
(1) Whether the Electoral Roll of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation has become final?
(2) Whether the petitioner suffers from a disqualification under Section 90(1)(a) so as to attract Section 178(1)(a) and (d)(1) and (iv)?
10. An "elector" has been defined under Section 2(15) of the Act as a person whose name is included in the voters' list for the time being in force and who is not subject to any disqualification referred to under Section 74. Section 74 of the Act deals with the disqualification for registration which is similar to Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The petitioner is an "elector" within the meaning of Section 2(15) and is qualified for registration under Section 74 of the Act. Section 76 of the Act setting out the conditions of registration states that he should not be less than eighteen years of age on the qualifying dale and should be an ordinarily resident in a Ward in a Municipality. The meaning of "ordinarily resident" has been set out under Section 77. Sub-section (5) of Section 77 of the Act states that where a question arises as to whether a person is ordinarily resident at a place at any relevant time, it shall be determined by the State Election Commission with reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules as may be made in behalf. Section 78 deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and Section 79 deals with the correction of entries in Electoral Roll. Section 80 of the Act provides for inclusion of names in the electoral roll. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 states that the Electoral Registration Officer shall, if he is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct that his name he included therein. Proviso to Sub-section (2) states that if the applicant is already registered in any other electoral roll, his name shall be struck off from the roll or if it is for some other office to do it, the inclusion shall be informed to the Electoral Registration Officer concerned who shall on receipt of the information, strike off the applicant's name from that roll. Section 81 provides for an appeal. Making a false statement is made punishable with imprisonment or fine under Section 84. From these provisions, it is clear that so far as the electoral rolls for the Municipalities are concerned, detailed procedures have been laid down for its preparation and its finalisation, including an appeal. Section 203 of the Act bars Civil Court jurisdiction to adjudicate on the entitlement to be registered or the legality of the action taken by the officers for registration. Therefore, the registration of the petitioner's name in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Ward has attained finality and the Civil Court including Election Court cannot go into it. On the factual appreciation also, nobody has disputed the fact that the petitioner is an ordinary resident in a Ward of Thiruuvananthapuram Municipality and that his name was registered after he shifted his residence even in the year 1994. The following were the objections (Ext. X3) raised by the 1st respondent before the Returning Officer, who made the endorsement in the objections itself :
(1) Petitioner was holding an executive post of the Panchayat--"As per records seen resigned from 18-8-95".
(2) Had been acting as President after Election Notification--"No. proof".
(3) He has dual membership as voter--"Removed from Panchayat Roll."
(4) He is disqualified under Section 86 of the Kerala Municipality Act--"Objection is not valid. Hence overruled, dt. 28-8-95."
This is the document filed as Ext. X3 before the Election Court. Therefore, there is no case for the 1st respondent that the petitioner does not qualify to be a member of the Ward of a Municipality and he was not a resident of the Municipality. In any event, there was no further action taken against his dual membership, if any, for his removal invoking the Municipality Act or against the order of the Returning Officer. A complaint was preferred before the State Election Commission who had passed an order initiating criminal action on being prima facie satisfied with the allegation. An O.P. was filed by the petitioner herein. In the counter filed by the Election Commission, it is stated that he has authorised the City Police Commissioner to (1) obtain prior permission of the competent Court; (2) to conduct a detailed enquiry; and (3) to prosecute the petitioner if found guilty. It is clearly admitted that false declaration is not a disqualification for membership. The O.P. was dismissed holding that the Election Commission has power to initiate criminal proceedings. Therefore, in so far as his registration in the Municipality is concered, it has become final. In this context, number of decisions of the Supreme Court on this point have been cited to support the point that the electoral rolls are final and it cannot be subject-matter of adjudication before the Civil Court.
11. Durga Shankar v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520, In this case, the Supreme Court held that the electoral roll is conclusive as to the qualification of the elector except where a disqualification is expressly alleged or proved. The Supreme Court was dealing with an objection that the nomination should have been rejected as it was defective and since the returning officer did not do so, his act amounts to an improper acceptance of nomination. The Supreme Court held in that context that if the want of qualification of a candidate does not appear on the face of the nomination paper or of the electoral roll, but is a matter which could be established only by evidence, an enquiry at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers is required under the Act (Representation of the People Act 1951) only if there is any objection to the nomination. The Returning Officer is then bound to make such enquiry as he thinks proper on the result of which he can either accept or reject the nomination. It would have been an improper acceptance, if the want of qualification was apparent on the electoral roll itself or on the face of the nomination paper. It is certainly not final and the Election Tribunal may, on evidence placed before it, come to finding that the candidate was not qualified at all. The expression "non-compliance with the provision of the Constitution" according to the Supreme Court, was wide enough to cover such cases where the question is not one of improper acceptance or rejection of the nomination by the Returning Officer. But there is a fundamental disability in the candidate to stand for election at all.
12. B. M. Ramaswamy v. B. M. Krish-namurthy, AIR 1963 SC 458. In this case, the question is whether under Section 10 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act (10 of 1959) the voters' list is final for the purpose of election. In view of Section 10, the Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that there is any improper acceptance of the nomination of the appellant, for, his name being in the list of voters, he is qualified to be elected as a member of the Panchayat. According to the Supreme Court, there is no provision in the Act which enables the High Court to set aside the election on the ground that though the name of a candidate is in thhe list, it had been included therein illegally.
13. Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, AIR 1970 SC 340. The Supreme Court was dealing with Representation of the People Act, 1950. The argument in that case was though the name of the candidate was in the electoral roll of the constituency, he had taken up Government service subsequent to the inclusion of his name and, therefore, he became disqualified to (be) a member of any local body and, therefore, he is not entitled to vote in the election. The supreme Court held that in view of Section 23(3) of the Act, 1950. every person who is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of a constituency as it stood on the last date for making nomination for an election in that constituency is entitled to vote unless it is shown that he is prohibited by any of the provisions of the Act from exercising his vote. The Supreme Court held that the 1950 Act form a complete code by themselves in the matter of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls. It is clear from those provisions that the entries found in the electoral roil are final and they are not open to challenge either before the Civil Court or before a Tribunal which considers the validity of any election. The Supreme Court followed and approved the decision in B. M. Ramaswamy's case (supra).
14. P. R. Beiagali v. B. D. Jatti, AIR 1971 SC 1348. In this case, the Election Court went to the question whether the 1 st respondent was not an elector at all and therefore not qualified if he stands for election. The Supreme Court held that the ratio laid down in Durga Shankar's case, AIR 1954 SC 520 has to be followed and that in an election petition, the correctness of the electoral roll cannot be gone into. It was held therein that the question whether the 1st respondent was ordinarily resident in Jamkhandi constituency during the material period and was entitled to be registered in the electoral roll could not the subject-matter of enquiry except in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1950. The Supreme Court approved the Full Bench judgment in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh, AIR 1968 Punj 1 (FB) about the finality of the electoral roll.
15. In S. K. Choudhhary v. B. Panjiar, AIR 1973 SC 717 the Supreme Court held that in a petition to set aside an election, it is not open to the High Court to go into the question whether the names entered in the electoral roll were entered therein illegally. Thisjudgment was sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondent in terms of Section 30 of the Repre-sentatipon of the People Act, 1950 where there is specific bar of the Civil Court. According to the learned counsel, the provisions under the Municipality Act are different. But I find from the language of Section 203 of the Municipality Act which is in pari materia with Section 30 wherein the Civil Court is barred to en tertai n or adj udicate on the question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll to a body or to question the legality of any action of an Electoral Registration Officer.
16. In R. Chandran v. M. V. Marappan, AIR 1973 SC 2362 the Supreme Court held that once a person's name has been included in the electoral roll his qualifications to be included in that roll cannot be questioned cither when he tries to cast his vote or to stand for election or even after the election is over. The electoral roll is conclusive as to qualification of the elector except in respect of the requirement under Article 173. The Supreme Court held that all the decisions of the Supreme Court on the finality of the electoral roll and their not being liable to be questioned would equally apply to the electoral rolls of local bodies.
17. R. P. Singh v. R. B. Jha, AIR 1976 SC 2573. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between a challenge to the right of a voter to be registered in an electoral roll and the jurisdiction of an authority appointed under the Act to enter a name in the electoral roll. In that case, 40 voters of a particular area were illegally prevented from exercising their frannchise and it was alleged that it materially affected the result of the election. While repelling the argument that the entries in the electoral roll have beeome conclusive and the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the entries or enquire into the validity, the Supreme Court held that if the name of a person is entered in violation of the mandate contained in the Section, he can have no right to vote. The entry, according to the Supreme Court, must be in accordance with law. In that context, the Supreme Court has made a clear distinction and held that there is a breach of the provision and the question is not of an irregular exercise of power but of lack of power itself.
18. Nripendra v. Jai Ram Verma. AIR 1977 SC 1992. In this case, the Supreme Court held that in a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll. After the electoral roll has become final, it cannot be interfered and no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification under Section 16 of the 1950 Act,
19. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, AIR 1980 SC 1362. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the grounds for declaring an election to be void under Section 100 of the R.P. Act, 1951. In that context, the Supreme Court held that if the contention of the appellant that the grievance for voiding the election made in the petition is not comprehended in any of the sub-sections of Section 100 is accepted and there is no other provision in the Act for voidi ng the election, the election petitioners would be without a remedy. It would mean that even though one can indulge into forgery -- that is tampering of ballot papers and get away with it. In order to ensure the purity of election it is better to so construe Section 100 as to embrace within its fold, as has been done by the Constitution Bench, all conceivable infirmities which may be urged for voiding an election.
20. Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao, AIR 1994 SC 2277 : (1994 AIR SCW 2155). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the names of persons included in the voters' list becomes final after publication. The plea that inclusion of names was illegal cannot be allowed to he raised in an election petition.
21. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik, AIR 1981 SC 547. The Supreme Court while interpreting Section 100 of the R. P. Act. 1951 as to the improper rejection of nomination. held that the expression "any nomination" occurring in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (d) of Section 100 in the second part may include nomination of a returned candidate as well. But in the case of a returned candidate on the expression that the returned candidate was qualified or disqualified to be chosen, the Supreme Court held that the ambit of the words "for being chosen" in the definition of "disqualified" has to be restricted to "the date of his election". In contrast with Clause (a), in a case falling under Clause (d)(i) of Section 100 if an objection is taken before the returning officer against the nomination of any candidate on the ground of his being not qualified, or being disqualified for being chosen the crucial date as per Section 36(2)(a) with reference to which the existence ornon-existence of such disqualification is to be enquired into is the date of scrutiny of the nomination of the candidate.
22. From the above decisions in reference to finality of electoral rolls, the following principles emerge :
(1) Ordinarily the electoral rolls arc final. They cannot be challenged before the Civil Court or Tribunals.
(2) The election Tribunal can go into the want of qualification apparent on electoral roll, i.e. if there is a fundamental disability or bar to stand for election.
(3) It is not open to the election Court to go into the entries made in the electoral rolls and even if there is irregularities in its preparation, viz., omission or inclusion in the rolls.
23. Section 178 sets out the grounds under which an election can be declared void. In this petition, the relevant clauses involved are Section 178(1)(a), (d)(1) and (iv). Clause (1)(a) can be invoked if the candidate is not having the qualification under Section 85 or suffers from disqualification under Section 90 of the Act.
24. The entry of the candidate's name in Ward No. 13 of (Kannamola Ward) Thiruvanan-thapuram Municipal Corporation is not in dispute. The contention is that since he had secured reyisteration by making a false declaration and, therefore, it should be deemed as if his name is not there cannot be accepted. The candidate got his registration in the year 1994. There are qualifications and procedures for registration. Section 74 deals with disqualiication for registration in electoral roll. Section 76 deals with conditions for registration. Sections 78 to 81 deal with preparation, correction, inclusion and appeal in reference to electoral rolls. Sub-section (5) of Section 77 enables the State Election Commission to determine the question of "ordinarily resident". There is no bar for registration of a person whose name is already in rolls of some other electoral roll. Proviso to Sub-section (2) to Section 80 enables the Electoral Registration Officer to strike off the name or inform the Officer concerned to strike off the name from the rolls already in existence. There is no scope for holding that in spite of his registration and entry the candidate's name must be treated as if it is not in existence, in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court referred above.
25. This is not a case of fundamental disability as held by the Supreme Court in Durga Shankar's case, AIR 1954 SC 520, or lack of power for registration as held in R. P. Singh's case, AIR 1976 SC 2573 or forgery or tampering of votes (Raghbir Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1980 SC 1362) so as to say that the candidate was not qualified. The disqualification alleged in referee to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 90 is also in the same footing even t1hough the argument is in violation of Article 243-V read with Section 17 of the R. P. Act, 1950, i.e. double entry, Section 16 of the R.P. Act, 1950 which deals with disqualification for registration does not include double entry under Section 17 as one of such disqualifying grounds. Hence the argument cannot be sustained.
26. Sub-clause (d)(i), viz., improper acceptance of nomination and (d)(iv) non-compliance of provisions of the Act or rules are on the basis of above grounds, viz., double entry and registration by suppression. In this context, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 111 the qualification of the candidate is to be determined on the date of the scrutiny as laid down by the Supreme Court in V. C. Shukla's case referred above. 28-8-95 was the date of scrutiny and on that date, the candidate's name was removed from Panchayat and was not the President of the Panchayat though this has no direct bearing on the grounds alleged. As pointed out earlier, the Election Court held that the candidate was not disqualified on both counts. The finding had not been challenged. However, the appellate Court found that he was an ordinary resident of Panchayat and there is violation of Section 155(1) and (3) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and in view of thai finding election is to be declared void under Section 178(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. The question of ordinarily of ordinarily resident is a matter to be determined by State Election Commission. Sub-clause (d)(iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 178 deals only with non-compliance of the Municipality Act and Rules and not, and cannot be relating to the violation of Panchayat Act which is also not a disqualification. Looked from any angle, the reasoning of the appellate Court cannot be sustained.
27. I. Vikheshe Sema v. Hoikishe Sema, AIR 1996 SC 1842 : (1996 AIR SCW 2151) the Supreme Court held that the plain reading of the language of Sub-section (3) or (4) of Section 62 of R.P. Act, 1951 makes it clear that mere inclusion of the names of voters at more than one place would not ipso facto render all those votes as void. If the name of a voter is included at more than one place whether in more than one constituency, he has the right to choose as to where he may vote but this right can be exercised by him only once. The reason obviously is that every voter has one vote and he has (sic) right to vote at more than one place, it is only then the vote of that person, wherever he has voted would be regarded as being void.
28. Ramnarain v. Ramachandra, AIR 1958 Bombay 325. In this case, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had taken the view that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1951 are not mandatory but only directory. Merely because the name of a person appeared more than once in the electoral roll of the constituency, it cannot be said that his nomination for being elected was void or that there has been any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act of 1951. The Division Bench also held that it is incompetent to the election Tribuunal to travel beyond the scope of Section 100 of 1951 Act. It however held that it would not be open to the appellate Court to do something in exercising its appellate powers which the trying authority was not competent to do. The contention that the respondent having not resigned from his office of membership within 14 days from the date of election, his seat has fallen vacant under Section 75 of the Act of 1951, is not one of the grounds on which an election could be declared void thereunder.
29. In Shanti Swaroop v. Abdul Rehman, AIR 1965 MP 55 a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court took a view that the provisions Section 17 of the Act are directory and that even if they are not observed in a particular case, it cannot be'said that the nomination of any person, whose name appears in the electoral rolls of two constituencies, is void or that there was any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
30. The principal contention is that the petitioner had made a false declaration before the Electoral Registration Officer by omitting to state his membership of the Panchayat. in his application for inclusion of his name in Form 4 towards the column which deals with the declaration that whether his name is included in the electoral roll in any other Ward. He has left the column blank. Thereby he made a false declaration for a registration, before the Municipality. This is contrary to the bar placed under Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which prohibits the registration in the Electoral Rolls in more than one constituency. The argument is that he is disqualified to be registered in two places in the light of Section 17 of the R.P. Act, 1950 read with Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) to Article '243-V of the Constitution of India. This argument is stretched to attract Section 178 of the Act to declare the election void. The argument in my view is straining too much and cannot be sustained. It is a well settled principle that before a person is disqualified from eligibility, there must be an explicit rule. A disqualification invites a punishment or ineligibility to a post or position. Before a person is declared so disqualified, there must be clear rules to the disqualification and a sufferer must also be told so as to put up his defence.
31. It is nobody's case that on the date of the election, petitioner was disqualified and did not have the qualifications set out under Section 85, For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, this contention cannot be accepted. On the question of non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or rules or orders made thereunder and the improper acceptance of the nomination, it has to be considered that no specific provision has been pointed out to show that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provision of any Act or Rules. In reference to improper aceptance of the nomination, the objection was taken by the 1 st respondent before the Returning Officer which has been overruled. The Returning Officer had stated that his name had already been removed from the rolls of the Panchayat and that he had already resigned from the post of President. It could be seen that under Section 132, no person shall vote in more than one ward and if a person votes in more than one Ward, his votes in all such wards shall be void. Therefore, there is no legal bar for the voter to exercise his right for the reason that his name is found in two places, provided that he votes only in one place. If he cast his vote in more than one place, all such votes shall be void. The Legislature has viewed the possibility of a person continuing in more than one Ward according to his place of residence or his place of business etc. Therefore, mere presence of the name in more than one Ward is not illegal. The provisions dealing with disqualifications do not include such a double entry as a disqualification.
For the above reasons, I do not find any illegality in the nomination of the petitioner and in my view he had not committed any violation of the Act or Rules so as to declare his election void under Section 178 of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Additional District Judge is set aside and the revision is allowed.
Before parting with the case, I record my appreciation for the able presentation of the case by counsel for the petitioner Shri T. R. Ramachandran Nair.
C.M.P. Nos. 355 & 356 of 1998 in C.R.P. No. 183 of 1998 Dismissed.