The judgment clarified the distinction between errors of law apparent on the face of the record and those requiring elaborate argument to detect, emphasizing the supervisory jurisdiction of certiorari and the distinction between supervisory and appellate jurisdiction.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition was respondent No.1 in Election Petition No. 8 of 1963 before the District Munsiff, Kanjirappally. The 2nd respondent here, was the petitioner therein. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were candidates for election from Ward No. 2 of Kuttikkal Panchayat at the election held on 27-11-1963. Respondent No. 3 withdrew his candidature within the time allowed by the rule. In the election the petitioner secured 226 votes and the 2nd respondent 225 votes. The petitioner was therefore declared to be the duly elected member of the panchayat from Ward No. 2. The 2nd respondent filed the election petition questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner on various grounds. That petition was heard and disposed of by the impugned order. By that order it was declared that the election of the Petitioner was invalid, and that the 2nd respondent was duly elected from Ward No. 2 of the Kuttikkal Panchayat as he was found to have secured the majority of votes. Ext. P1 is a copy of the order. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order for the reason that the Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record incoming to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent got the majority of the votes. The Tribunal found that two of the votes cast in favour of the 2nd respondent and rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid, were valid votes in his favour and therefore he secured the majority of votes. The reason why the Returning Officer rejected the two votes as invalid was that the voters had affixed the mark on the back of the ballot papers. The Tribunal, on the other hand, found that the two voters really intended to vote for the 2nd respondent as they had made the marks on the symbol of the 2nd respondent even though the marks were made on the back of the ballot papers.

2. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in holding that the two votes were validly cast in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is seen from the two ballot papers that the voters had affixed the marks on the back of the ballot papers. The symbol of the 2nd respondent in the election was 'horse', and the ballot papers being transparent that symbol is quite visible on the back of the ballot papers. According to the Tribunal, as the voters affixed the marks even though on the back of the ballot papers but against the symbol of the 2nd respondent, that was clear evidence to show that the voters intended to cast the votes in favour of the 2nd respondent. Mr. Velayudhan Nair, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the view is erroneous in law. He drew my attention to R.41 of the Kerala Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1962. R.41 (1) reads:

"(1) That elector ob receiving the ballot paper shall forthwith

(a) proceed to one of the voting compartments,

(b) there make a mark or marks on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose on or near the symbol of the candidate for whom he intends to vote,

(c) fold the ballot paper so as to conceal his vote,..."

Mr. Velayudhan Nair said that a voter has to make the mark on or near the symbol and that making the mark on the back of the ballot paper against the symbol, although the symbol is visible on the back of it, is not a sufficient compliance with R.41 (1) (b), and therefore the Returning Officer was right in rejecting these votes. In support of this contention he drew my attention to a passage occurring in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 14, 3rd Edition, page 140. The passage is as follows:

"A ballot paper marked on the back only should not be counted, even though the mark shows through the paper on to the front, A ballot paper marked both on the back and on the front may, however, be counted".

On the other hand, Mr. Easwara Iyer, appearing for the 2nd respondent relied on Swaran Singh v. Election Tribunal (AIR. 1960 Allahabad 66). In that case the voter made the