In the absence of statutory provisions, the validity of an election should be determined based on facts, and the authority of the President to cast a vote should be considered in the context of the specific election.

Petitioner challenges the election of fourth respondent, as Honorary Treasurer of respondent - Sports Council. The election was held on 31-8-1991 and sixtyseven members of the Council were present, and they voted. Thirty-four votes were polled for petitioner, and thirty-three for fourth respondent. Petitioner objected to the reception of one vote obtained by fourth respondent. But, the objection was overruled. One vote polled by petitioner was invalidated on the ground that the ballot paper did not bear the signature of the Secretary though it bore the seal of the Council. Thus, each candidate secured thirty-three votes. Then, the President (who had not voted earlier), polled his casting vote in favour of fourth respondent, and he was declared elected.

2. Petitioner contends that a valid vote was invalidated improperly. He would contend further that the President could not have polled his casting vote, as a casting vote can only be a second vote. In answer, respondents would submit that the vote was in order, and that the President was within his rights in casting his vote.

3. The invalidated ballot paper did not contain the signature of the Secretary. Yet, in the absence of any fraud, it should not have been rejected - submits petitioner. There is no mandatory requirement regarding affixture of signature on the ballot paper. A vorter or candidate should not be penalised for the carelessness or folly of the Secretary who was to sign ballot papers, submits petitioner. In the view of respondents the rejection is valid because, the election is not something exclusively between a candidate and the Election Officer, but it is something concerning all the voters, and Rules must be strictly observed.

4. The election in question is not governed by statutory provisions. It is a domestic election. The position therefore is that, vice or validity should be determined on facts. Unlike elections governed by the Representation of People Act, or other statutory provisions, there is no question of legal consequences following a breach of law, except the general law. The counter affidavit states that the Secretary announced the procedure for election. It is stated in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 (paragraph 3). To the same effect are the statements in paragraph (4) of the counter affidavit of third respondent, and paragraph (4) of the counter affidavit of fourth respondent. The directives of the secretary have no force of law, and they can be treated only as directory. Whether the election is vitiated, is a question of fact and not a question of law. The existence of certain facts or violation of certain provisions of law, may taint an election. Since no statutes regulate the election here, it must be decided only on facts by ascertaining whether there are vitiating circumstances.

5. To ascertain whether any malpractice had taken place, or whether there was any bogus voting, respondents 2 to 4 were allowed to file an affidavit by order dated 5.9.1991, clarifying certain aspects. Respondents 1 & 2 filed a counter affidavit. The question and answers contained in the counter affidavit are extracted below:

"In obedience to the interim order of this Honourable Court dated 5-9-1991, the answer are stated as follows:

a) whether a ballot paper was wrongly issued to anyone?

No.

b) whether there was any fraud involved in obtaining or using a ballot paper?

The SECRETARY issued all the ballot papers with his initials. During the scrutiny after the polling of the votes, a ballot paper without the initials of the Secretary was found. This was not a proper ballot paper. The Council is not able to specifically point out whether any fraud has been committed or not.

c) Whether he made a mistake regarding the identity of any member?

No.

d) Whether he permitted anyone to enter the hall and vote after the ball was closed, contrary to the note to the agenda?

No.

e) If an impropriety had been committed, why that was not minuted while other matters were