IMPORTANT POINT
Proper comparison of signatures and adherence to established legal principles are crucial in determining the validity of elections and allegations of corrupt practices.

ORDER :

1. Succinctly pleaded the facts in the instant petition and relevant for adjudication of controversy in hand are that:

1.1. The elections for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gangani were held in the year 2020. Petitioner-Bhanwar Lal Bhadu and the respondent No.1 Ved Prakash contested the elections for the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner secured 2212 votes, whereas the respondent No.1 secured 2069 votes. The petitioner was declared winner in the elections as he secured 145 votes more than the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 preferred an election petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Election Tribunal’) under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as Rule 80(d)(iii) and Rule 80(f) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Elections Rules, 1994. In the election petition, the allegation levelled is that in the voter list of Ward No.10, the voters from Serial No.440 to 578 were deleted, however, the deleted voters from the Ward No.10 had casted their votes in favour of petitioner at more than one place (double voting) and, therefore, the non-applicant-Bhanwar Lal Bhadu has adopted corrupt practices in the election and, therefore, the election of the petitioner should be countermanded and the applicant may be declared as elected.

1.2. The petitioner-non-applicant filed detailed reply to the election petition and raised certain preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the election petition.

1.3. The official respondents also filed the reply stating that the election was conducted in fair manner.

1.4. The learned Election Tribunal, after framing of the issues adjudicated the matter by adducing the evidence submitted before it from both the sides. The learned Tribunal, while allowing the election petition vide order dated 07.12.2023 declared the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gangani, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur null and void. Aggrieved against the order dated 07.12.2023, the petitioner-non-applicant has preferred the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the pleadings in the Election Petition of the respondent-Ved Prakash shows that the names of certain voters had been deleted from Ward No.10 of Gram Panchayat, Gangani and their names had been reflected in Ward No.12 of Village Gangani and thus, the voters, whose names were deleted from Ward No.10, had casted their votes at both the places i.e. at Ward No.10 and Ward No.12. Learned counsel submitted that in the reply filed by the petitioner-non-applicant as well as the State, the submissions made in the Election Petition were denied and on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Election Tribunal framed four issues, out of which, Issue Nos.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the election petitioner/respondent No.1 and Issue No.2 was also decided against the petitioner-non-applicant. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the Issue No.2 framed by the learned Election Tribunal was very specific and the learned Election Tribunal was under an obligation to discuss the matter in consonance with the other issues framed. Since the Issue No.2 framed was that whether the persons whose names have been deleted from Ward No.10 from Sr. No.440-578 and these names having been added in Ward No.12 had casted their votes in favour of petitioner at both the places by resorting to illegal and corrupt means in connivance with returning officer and his team? Learned counsel further submitted that the finding on Issue No.2 is cryptic and without any basis. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that at the behest of the petitioner, the deleted voters of Ward No.10 had casted their votes at both the places i.e. Ward No.10 and Ward No.12 in favour of petitioner. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that a set of same persons had casted their votes at Ward No.10 and