( 1 ) PURSUANT to the consensus, rule was issued and service of which is waived by learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Dave for respondent no. 1, by learned advocate Mr. Chhaya for respondent no. 2, and by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for respondent no. 3, and in view of the element of urgency involved, consensual request for final hearing is accepted by us and, therefore, we have heard the matter on merits for final judicial adjudication.

( 2 ) A short, but interesting question, at the instance of the petitioner, who is according to him, a duly elected representative of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation to the Court of Bhavnagar University and the action of the respondent-authority, in directing repoll, cancelling the election process ended with counting and resultsheet, dated 22. 3. 2004, is raised for reconsideration and adjudication in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner has been that, pursuant to the election programme, he has been one of the candidates for the election for the Bhvnagar Municipal Corporation to the Court of Bhavnagar University, as he is eligible to be elected for the post of Member of Bhavnagar University from the constituency of the Bhvanagar Municipal Corporation, contemplated under Section 15 of Clause II (A) (iv) (b) of the Bhanvagar University Act, 1978 [for short "act"]

( 4 ) THE respondent no. 1, Bhavnagar university, through its Vice Chancellor appointed respondent no. 2. as Returning Officer for the said election process and to conduct the election for the said constituency, specified under Section 15 of Clause II (A) (iv) (b), the respondent no. 2 Returning Officer published, notice dated 09. 2. 2004 and thereby election programme came to be notified. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation opted for election to be conducted by postal ballets and the said exercise of option was also notified. There were two candidates. Respondent no. 2, started scrutiny and counting of votes at at 5 hrs. in the evening on 22. 3. 2004 in presence of representative nominated by the respondent no. 1, Bhavnagar University as also in presence of representative of both the candidates, who were contested the said election.

( 5 ) THE respondent no. 2, Returning Officer had counted the envelopes. There were 50 voters, out of 51 corporators, and 8 voters were declared invalid, and out of 42 votes declared valid, the petitioner got 23 votes and respondent no. 3, the other candidate got 19 votes. The result-sheet was signed by the petitioner but was not signed by the respondent no. 3. However, the Returning Officer signed it.

( 6 ) IN the meantime, First Information Report came to be lodged by respondent no. 3 to the concerned Police Station for irregularities and illegalities in the election process. A cognizable offence came to be recorded on this complaint being Cr. No. 62 of 2004 before the Bhavnagar Police Station. The respondent No. 2, in order to ensure that free and fair election takes place, sent a communication dated 25. 3. 2004, whereby the Vice Chancellor was informed about the factum of criminal complaint. He, therefore, thought it expedient to direct repoll and sought the guidance from the Vice Chancellor, who in turn, informed him, as an Election Officer that he is competent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. He, therefore, directed fresh election and for that purpose, notice was also came to be issued and ballet papers were also sent to the voters for repolling.

( 7 ) IT becomes very clear from the affidavit-in-reply that, as an election officer, he noticed serious irregularities as alleged in ballets papers, and which, in his opinion are eligible to be declared to be invalid. It is in this context, repoll was thought expedient so as to free and fair election takes place, devoid of any irregularities alleged in the FIR, as well as, application which was filed by respondent no. 3 During the Course of hearing, we