JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an Election Petition No. 8 of 2001 filed Under Sections 14 and 23 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. The Court below by the order dated 29th October, 2003 has dismised the election petition.
2. The election to the post of pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Ferozabad, District Ferozabad is the subject matter of the present appeal. In the said election 4 persons, the present appellant and the three respondents were candidate for the aforesaid post. The result was declared on 13th March, 2001. In the said election total 103 votes wee polled. Out of them 9 votes ere rejected being invalid. Resultantly 94 valid cotes were cast. As per report of the Election Officer the candidates got the votes as follows :-
3. The Election Officer on the basis of the votes polled as indicated above declared Smt. Meera, the respondent No. 1 in the appeal as a successful candidate. None of the voters cast their votes for second and subsequent prefemeces. All the voters cast only first preference votes. Challenging the said declaration of result an election petition was filed. The election petition has been dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present appeal has been filed. The notices were issued to the contesting respondents by registered post. The office has reported that the notices issued by registered post to the respondents No. 1 to 4 by registered post, acknowledgement due fixing 20th May, 2004, have not been returned back after service, neither undelivered cover not the acknowledgement received back. The service on the respondents was held sufficient by the order dated 11th August, 2004 and thereafter the appeal was listed for hearing on 18th August, 2004.
4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents even on 18th August, 2004, and the hearing of the appeal concluded exparte.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It was submitted that the election in question is governed by the provisions of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs) Rules, 1994. The procedure for counting of votes is provided under Rule 26. Schedule-II framed under Rule 27 provides the instructions for the determination of the result. It was submitted that since there were 4 candidates, therefore, the quota was a relevant factor. Ninety four valid first preference votes were cast. According to the formula provided for determination of quota, it is half of the valid votes cast plus one. Therefore, in the present case it comes to 48 votes. The respondent No. 1 has been declared elected while she got only, 45 votes. The total votes cast in her favour being less than the quota, she could not be declared a successful candidate in the election. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Jaidrath Singh v. Jivendra Kumar, AIR 2000 SC 988. Title of Rules is U.P. Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994-Editor.
6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Indisputably there were four candidates in the election fray for the post of Pramukh, Kshcttra Panchayat Ferozabad. The respondent No. l who has been declared elected got 45 votes in all. While the appellant secured only 31 votes. It is also not in dispute that the election held with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. In this connection reference can be made to Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follows :-
"17. Manner of Voting.-The election will be held in accordance with the system by proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote and the voting, as such election shall be by secret ballot, votes shall be cast in person and no vote shall be received by proxy."
7. Rule 26 lays down procedure at counting and Rule 27 deals with the determination of the result. The said Rule is quoted below :-
"27. Determination of Result.-After all the valid papers have been arranged in parcels according to the first preference recorded for each candidate, the Returning Officer shall proceed to determine the result of the voting in accordance with the instructions contained in ScheduIe-II to these Rules."
8. The aforesaid Rule refers to Schedule-II to the Rules. The Schedule lays down instructions for the declaration of result. Paras 2 and 3 to the Schedule-II are relevant for the purposes of determination of quota sufficient to secure the return of a candidate to the election to be elected. The para-4 is in two parts. In the present case the para 4 (2) is relevant as there were more than 2 candidates in the election. The relevant portion of Para (2) of Schedule II below :-
"(2) If there are more than two candidates, then.-(a) If one of them is found to secure first preference votes equal to or more than the quota determined under instruction No. 3, declare him as elected; or
(b) If none of them secure first preference votes equal to or more than the quota aforesaid proceed according to the instruction hereinafter taking into consideration second and subsequent preferences as may be necessary."
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on para 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaidrath Singh (supra). The said paragraph reads as follows ;-
"The first question, therfore, is whether for the purposes of being elected every candidate must secure the quota. Where there are only two candidates the quota plays no part. Paragraph (4) of the Schedule states that the candidate who secures more first preference votes than the other shall be declared elected and where both get an equal number of first preference votes lots shall be drawn. The quota plays a part when there are more than two candidates. In that event successive counts shall be held until cither a candidate secures the quota or only one candidate remains."
10. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that the respondent No. l did not secure the quota and the quota plays the main part when there are more candidates, the Election Officer committed illegality in declaring the respondent No. 1 as elected.
11. I could lay my hands on a very recent Judgment of the Supreme Court. It has again considered the controversy in the case of Lalit Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh and Ors., JT 2004 (Suppl. 1) SC 228 ; (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1385 (SC). This is a judgment by Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court. In para 85 of the report the Supreme Court has observed that in the case of Jaidrath Sing (supra) the principle of electoral interpretation was applied therein without noticing the consequence there from. It has been further observed that the decision of University of Poona v. Shanker Narhar Agashe, AIR 1971 SC 1783, should be favoured in preference to the decision of Jaidrath Singh (supra) which has been rendered by two Judges Bench. It has been held that securing of quota may be necessary at one stage but may not be so necessary in a subsequent stage. Explaining the principles of proportionate representations it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case on the basis of the judgment of Poona University case that the process of elimination must go on. Poona University case is an authority for two propositions ; (1) The process of exclusion or elimination goes on until enough candidates fill their quota, (ii) Until the successive eleiminations leave behind one continuing candidate, which would be enough to fill vacancy.
12. Reverting the facts of the present case none of the voters did exercise their right to cast second or third preference vote. From the result declared by the Election Officer on Form-8 it is clear that Smt. Ganga Devi got lowest number of votes. She will be cleminated first. The voters who cast votes in favour of Smt. Ganga Devi did not exercise their right to cast second or third preference votes. After her elimination three persons remained and among all of them Smt. Pushpa Devi got 14 votes. The voters did not cast any second or third preference votes who voted for Smt. Pushpa Devi. Therefore, she would be eliminated in the second round of the counting and thereafter the appellant and the respondent No. 1 remains in picture as continuing candidates. In between these two persons Smt. Meena Rajpoot, the appellant, has secured 31 votes and therefore, she would be eliminated and after her elimination, Smt. Meera remains who has secured 45 votes. Smt. Meera has been rightly declared as successful candidate in the election by the Election Officer. The argument that Smt. Meera could not be declared Successful as she has not secured quota, has no legs to stand in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court by three Judges in the case of Lalit Mohan Pandey (supra).
13. In the result I find no illegality in the order of the Court below. The appeal is dismissed. But no order as to costs.