Judgment:
ORDER
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Challenge laid in this petition is to the election of respondent No. 2 as Chairman, Market Committee, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It has been prayed that election of respondent No. 2 as Chairman be quashed.
2. Petitioner is Vice-Chairman of MarketCommittee Union Territory, Chandigarh, Election to the post of Chairman of the Market Committee took place on 28-8-1996 in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (E) Estate Office Building Sector-17, Chandigarh. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 contested the said election. A total of nine votes were polled. Returning Officer declared respondent No. 2 as elected having polled five votes as against four votes polled by the petitioner. Allegation of the petitioner is that petitioner and respondent No. 4 polled four valid votes each; and one invalid vole has been wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 2 which has materially affected the result of the election. The disputed vote should have been declared as invalid as it contained a cross mark 'X' on the (op of the ballot paper in an ambiguous manner in addition to a cross mark 'X' in Column No. 3 of the said ballot paper against the name of respondent No. 2.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their separate but identical written statements. In the written statement, it is admitted that elections took place on 28-8-1996 in which total nine votes were polled. It was denied that one invalid vote was wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 2 as a valid vote. It has been asserted that respondent No. 2 polled five votes as against four votes polled by the petitioner and, was, therefore, rightly declared elected as Chairman of the Market Committee.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. Original ballot papers were sent for and were produced in sealed envelopes in this Court. In the presence of counsel for the parties, the seals which were intact were opened and the ballot papers were examined. There is no dispute regarding the eight votes out of which petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 polled four voles each. The disputed vote contains a cross mark 'X' on the top of the ballot paper in addition to the 'X' mark in Column No. 3 of the said ballot paper against the name of respondent No. 2. Elections were field under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 43( 1) of the Act confers the power on the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred under sub-section (1), such rules, may be provided for, inter alia, election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Committees, their powers and term of their office. Under Section 43(2) of the Act, the Punjab Market Committees Chairman and Vice-Chairman (Election) Rules. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been framed. The Act and the aforesaid Rules have been adopted and made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of Rule 8(1), (3) (4) and Rule 9 as a whole as under:--
'8. Voting and result of election-- (1) The Presiding Officer shall provide in the place where the meeting is held two voting compartments one for the election of Chairman and the other for that of Vice-Chairman in which members can record their votes without being overseen. The Presiding Officer shall also provide two sealed ballot-boxes, one each for the office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and shall place them in such a manner that they can be seen by him during polling. The ballot boxes shall be so constructed that ballot papers can be introduced therein but cannot be withdrawn therefrom without the boxes being unlocked or opened.
(3) Every member wishing to vote shall be supplied separately, with two ballot-papers in Form C one each for the office of Chairman and Vice-Chairman on which names of the contesting candidates shall be printed, typed or legibly written in English and Regional Languages in an alphabetical order. The ballot paper shall be signed by the Presiding Officer before being handed over to the members. The ballot paper for the election of Vice-Chairman shall be supplied after the member has exercised his right to vote for the Chairman.
(4) The member shall, on receiving the ballot paper, proceed to the place set apart for voting and there place a cross mark 'X' in column (3) of the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote, with a red or blue pencil.
xx xx xx(6) xx xx xx'. '9. Validity of ballot-paper.-- Any ballot-paper which bears any mark or signature by which the voter can be identified or on which the mark 'X' is placed against more than one name or in an ambiguous manner or which does not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 shall be declared invalid.'
6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as there were more than one 'X' marks on the disputed ballot, the same be rejected under Rule 9 being an ambiguous vote; that under R. 8(4)mark 'X' could only be put on the place set apart for voting and if voter puts the cross mark 'X' at more than one place, the vole was liable to be rejected. It was also contended that putting of mark 'X' at more than one place could lead to identification of the voter and, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected straightway.
7. We do not find any substance in these submissions. The marking of 'X' on the ballot paper by a voter in an ambiguous manner actually inherits the meaning that the voter has shown more than one choice. In the present case, in the ballot paper in dispute, the voter did not show his choice for more than one candidate. He has clearly shown his choice in favour of respondent No. 2. Second mark of 'X' shown in the ballot paper in dispute is immediately touching the name of respondent No. 2.....meaning thereby that the space meant for showing the voter's choice bears the mark of only one 'X'. There was no ambiguity in showing the choice by the voter. Name of respondent No. 2 is at Serial No. 1 in the ballot paper and the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 2. Voter has clearly indicated his choice by marking 'X' against the name of respondent No. 2 and just above that mark he has put another mark 'X' which does not show that there was any ambiguity about the choice of the voter. Had the other mark 'X' been in column No. 2 against the name of the petitioner then certainly it could have spelled an ambiguity in the choice. The choice of the voter is clear that he wanted to vote for respondent No. 2. Contention that putting the mark 'X' at two places on the ballot paper in the same column could lead to identification of the voter also cannot be accepted. Reliance placed on Shamsher Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1973 Pun LJ 753, by the counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. In that case, the voter had put mark 'O' instead of mark 'X' to show hispreference as provided under the rules. It was held that the vote was liable to be rejected as the voter had shown his preference by putting a mark other than the one provided under the rules. Simply putting of mark 'X' at two places in the same column or just above the first column, as in the present case, does not lead to the conclusion that the voter had shown multiple choice. Rule9 of the Rules provides that if a ballot paper bears any mark or signature by which the voter can be identified only then the ballot is liable to be rejected. There was no signature or other identifying mark which could lead to the identification of the vote. Simply putting the mark 'X' at two places in the same column cannot lead to identity of the voter.
8. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The envelope containing the ballot papers be resealed and returned to the concerned authority.
9. Petition dismissed.