IMPORTANT POINT
The purpose behind mandating such an attestation is obviously to prevent the mischief of impersonation and misuse of ballot votes- The declaration in Form No.16 is mandated by Rule 22 of the Rules, which seeks to ensure the above, by giving it a statutory habiliment-Unless the Gazetted Officer personally knows the voter; or satisfies himself as to his identity - in the event of the voter being identified by another person who is also known to him - he would obtain no statutory competence to make the attestation.

JUDGMENT :

The controversy in this case relates to the elections to ward No.7 of the Ramapuram Grama Panchayat and one among the pivotal issues in focus is the manner in which the attestation of the signature of a voter casting a postal ballot is to be done by the Attesting Officer in Form No.16 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995.

2. The elections were held on 5.11.2015 and the results were declared on 7.11.2015, leading to the declaration of the petitioner herein - Smt. Shyni Santhosh, to be elected, having secured 484 votes.

3. The 1st respondent - Shri. Cyriac George, was the closest candidate, securing 482 votes; and he, thereupon, challenged the elections under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KPR Act’ for short) on four grounds, namely:- (a) One of the votes cast in one of the booths has not been recorded in the voting machine; (b)that three postal ballot votes are void because the statutory Form No.16 accompanying them, have not been signed by the voters; (c) that six votes in booth No.1 had not been recorded; and (d) that a person by name Shri. Rajendran cast his vote twice.

4. The election petition filed before the Munsiff’s Court, Pala, as O.P.No.2/2015, was resisted by Smt. Shyni Santhosh asserting that all the afore allegations are unsustainable and unfounded; thus praying that same be dismissed.

5. The Munsiff’s Court, Pala, thereafter, took the petition to trial and marked Exts.A1 to A6 on the side of the petitioner - Shri. Cyriac George; while Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondent therein - Smt. Shyni Santhosh. The Court also marked Exts.X1 to X12 as Court exhibits and examined PW1 to PW10 on the side of the petitioner; while DW1 to DW5 were examined on the side of the respondent.

6. After evaluating the evidence and materials on record, the Munsiff’s Court allowed the petition finding that at least two postal votes are invalid, since the statutory Form No.16 declarations accompanying them were not signed by the respective voters; and further that one vote in Booth No.2 had not been recorded in the voting machine. It then proceeded to declare the elections to be vitiated; however, without conceding to the request of Shri. Cyriac George - the 1st respondent therein, to declare him to have been elected.

7. The judgment of the Munsiff’s Court, Pala, was taken up in appeal through A.S.(Election) No.94 of 2019 by Smt. Shyni Santhosh, which was heard by the learned Principal District Judge, Kottayam, leading to the impugned judgment, whereby, the findings and holdings of the Munsiff’s Court, Pala have been confirmed and affirmed.

8. It is this judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Kottayam, in the afore Appeal Suit, is now impugned before this Court.

9. I have heard Shri. Thomas Kachiramattam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Smt. Shyni Santhosh and Shri. K.C. Vincent, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Shri. Cyriac George.

10. The records reveal that respondents 2to 4, who were the other candidates in the elections, remained ex-parte throughout and did not prosecute the proceedings, which situation continues unchanged even before this Court, since they are neither present in-person nor represented through counsel, even though service of notice on them is complete.

11. As I have already indicated above, there were four grounds of challenge raised by Shri. Cyriac George, but two among them –namely, that six votes in Booth No.1 was not recorded and that certain Shri. Rajendran had cast his vote twice -were given up even before the Munsiff’s Court, Pala. Therefore, the only issues relevant are whether one vote in Booth No.2 had not been properly recorded in the voting machine and whether three postal ballot votes were void as alleged by Shri. Cyriac George.

12. When I go through the judgments