Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner along with the respondents no. 3 and 4 contested election of Syndicate of the respondent no. 1 which was scheduled on 29-3-1997. In all 113 voters participated in the election and out of them three votes were declared as invalid. 110 votes were found as valid votes and they were calculated on the preferential system of voting. Statute 128 of the Sardar Patel University, requires to determine, in first place, the quota of first preference, which the candidates contesting the said election were required to muster. Accordingly, as per formula evolved for the purpose of determining the said quota, said 110 votes which were declared valid votes for counting, were divided by the figure of 3 and 37 votes were required as first preference votes for declaration as elected. The respondent no. 3 got 47 votes first preference votes. While the petitioner got 35 first preference and the respondent no. 4 got 28 first preference votes and the respondent no. 3 was declared as elected to the syndicate of the respondent no. 1 as a member thereof. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the proceeding for the second round of counting for the purpose of determining as to who is to be declared as elected between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, as per the formula evolved for preferential system of voting, number of surplus votes standing to the credit of the respondent no. 3, being the elected candidate, were required to be determined in the first place. As the respondent no. 3 secured in all 47 first preference votes as against quota of 37 votes, 10 votes were declared as surplus votes. It was found that out of said 47 preference votes in all 7 votes other than first preference awarded to the respondent no. 3 as a result thereof, the said 7 votes were declared nontransferable votes. 40 ballots papers out of said 47 votes were having second preference awarded to either the petitioner or the respondent no. 4, the same came to be declared as transferable votes to be taken into consideration for the purpose of proceeding with the counting of second preference votes. It was found that 35 ballots out of 40 transferable votes were having second preference were awarded to the respondent no. 4 and 5 ballot papers having second preference allocated to the petitioner. The value of 35 preference votes given to the respondent no. 4 as well as value of 5 preference votes awarded to the petitioner were to be determined. Thus, the value of second preference votes was considered in the following manner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the votes shown at exh. A on page 46 wherein the respondent no. 3 was given a vote by placing "1" which is required standard alone under Statute 145. But this vote has been treated as a valid vote though no. "1" is not in standing position which is slanting at about 70 to 80 degree. This vote given to the respondent no. 3 should be declared as an invalid vote. Result of the respondent no. 3 will not be affected even this vote is declared as an invalid vote.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent University contended that the handwriting of the person are being changed and it cannot be accepted to have the handwriting just like copying the book. The handwriting in slanting position cannot be treated as consensus. The objection raised by the petitioner at the relevant time was placed before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University u/s 129(B) of the Sardar Patel University Act and he had taken into consideration the instructions for treating the ballot paper as valid or invalid and without prejudice against the petitioner in any manner the Vice Chancellor accepted the ballot paper as valid one. It was also contended that after giving first preference votes, the petitioner had not raised any objection at the appropriate time to take into consideration the prescribed norms in this behalf to consider the ballot paper as valid or invalid. After considering the material on record, the State Government found that the method and manner of handwriting of the voters could be different and each of the ballot papers is required to be taken into account and therefore the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the disputed ballot paper containing slanting "1" the vote was not found just and proper and to be accepted and the vote was to be considered as invalid vote is not sustainable.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rules required that the vote should be given in specified method and manner as contained in Statute 145 as number "1" is written on the vote in favour of the respondent no. 3 is not in standing position but it is in slanting position. Just like mark given is tick mark. This vote ought to have been declared as invalid vote by both the authorities below. Both the authorities below have committed an error on the face of the record in considering and declaring this vote as invalid vote. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Era Sezhiyan Vs. T.R. Balu and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 838, wherein ball-point pen was given to mark ballot paper in blue ink and that ball-point pen was of blue ink. But on particular ballot paper the voter marked the ballot paper by another ball-pen which was not in blue colour and that ballot paper was considered as an invalid by the Apex Court. In the similar manner, he contended that in present case, the voter is required to mark the ballot paper in the mode and manner prescribed thereof by the Statute. In the Statute it is clearly mentioned that figure "1" is not made in standing position, it can be rejected. As such, the decision taken by both the authorities below is erroneous on the face of the record and acceptance of the ballot paper as valid one is also illegal. On the contrary, it is contended that the finding of fact recorded by the authority concerned as to whether the mark on the ballot paper is one or not, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot disturb the finding of fact recorded by the authorities concerned. In this respect learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 233, wherein it has been held as under :