The right to vote during election is strictly governed by election rules, prohibiting voters on election duty from voting at polling stations to maintain electoral integrity.

JUDGMENT :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.)

[1] This Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner herein, who was respondent in the Election Petition No.1 of 2022, challenging the decision dated 06.02.2023 rendered by Principal Civil Judge, Lakhtar, whereby he allowed the same directing to cancel two votes cast by Manharsinh Nagubha Rana, Voter No.40 of Ward No.4 and Khumansinh Nagubha Zala, Voter No.64 of Ward No.6, on the ground that though they were issued postal ballot papers and in view of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Panchayat Election Rules 1994 (for short “the Rules”), they were prohibited to vote in any other manner except postal ballot, they have cast their vote at the polling station and thereafter cancelling those votes as identified by counterfoil Nos.00294 and 00311, votes received through postal ballot as also found from the ballot boxes, recounted and thereafter result be declared.

[2] The petitioner is the original respondent who was declared elected Sarpanch of Modhvana Gram Panchayat by the Returning Officer, as on counting of votes, both the candidates i.e. petitioner as also respondent herein, found to have obtained equal votes, the Returning Officer declared elected candidate by lot, as provided under Rule 63 of “the Rules” and declared petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Modhvana Gram Panchayat.

[3] However, respondent herein – Harpalsinh Ghanshyamsinh Rana challenged the validity of election of Modhvana Gram Panchayat in respect of Sarpanch is concerned by filing aforesaid Election Petition in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Lakhtar on various grounds including illegality committed during the course of election as also corrupt practice employed by the petitioner as also other grounds, as mentioned in the Election petition, tendered by the respondent herein before the competent Court. After adducing the evidence before the Court by both the sides and producing and proving the documents on record, the learned Judge, by his impugned judgment and order, directed cancellation of two votes cast by two persons, referred to hereinabove, at a polling station, though they were to cast their vote through postal ballot only and by no other means permitted to cast their vote at the polling station and directed counting of votes after cancellation of two votes in accordance with “the Rules” framed therefore and declare result thereof afresh.

[4] We have heard Mr. K.R.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. A.B.Gateshaniya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent herein.

[5] Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that even if it is presumed that those two voters were issued postal ballot, as concluded by the learned Judge after adducing evidence that they have not cast their vote twice, the election cannot be interfered with by the Court as the petitioner is declared elected in accordance with law. He has further submitted that as such, those two persons have not received postal ballots for the purpose of casting their vote, and therefore, even if they have been permitted to cast their vote at the polling station, there is no irregularity or illegality committed so as to necessitate cancelling the votes cast by them. He has further submitted that so far as the issue of corrupt practice employed by the petitioner, as alleged, found to be not proved by the respondent herein, and therefore, even if the Returning Officer permitted those two persons to cast their vote at the polling station, it cannot be termed as corrupt practice so as to declare the election invalid on that ground. He has f