Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri K.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mansha Ram holding brief of Shri S.K. Pathak for Smt. Arati Devi-respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Gohilawan, Vikas Khand Bhadohi, Distt. Sant Ravi Das Nagar on the reserved post for which election was held on 17.8.2005 and that result was declared on 28.8.2005. Total number of 714 votes were polled in which 22 votes were challenged. In the counting it was found that Smt. Arati Devi, the election petitioner secured 146 votes and returned candidate, Shri Kashi Nath, the petitioner had secured 164 votes. The petitioner was declared elected with difference of 22 votes. The Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate allowed the Election Petition on 24.9.2007 and has set aside the elections with directions that the vacancy be declared and bye-elections be held in accordance with law. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 24.9.2007 was challenged by the petitioner in revision under Section 12-C (6) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The revision was dismissed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge on 1.2.2008 confirming the finding of the Election Tribunal.

3. Brief facts given in the election petition and the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal confirmed by the Revisional Court are that the election petitioner alleged that the returned candidate belongs to ‘Patel’ biradari. He got names of 40 persons of ‘Patel’ biradari recorded in the electoral list of Gram Gohilaown illegally. They were residents of Gram Razaipur. They were shown as electors in both the voters list. The complaint in this regard was not considered by the Presiding Officer and thus 40 persons by making false declarations and fraudulent polling. affected the election result. The opposite party Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 supported the election petitioner and stated that the people residing at Village Razaipur have casted their votes in village Gohilawan. They had no concern with Village Gohilawan. The illegally casted votes helped the opposite party No. 1 to win the elections.

4. A large number of decided cases were cited by the Counsel for the petitioner alleging in defence, that once the election lists are finalised, the issue whether the electors were resident of Village Razaipur or Village Gohilawan has no consequence. In effect the election petitioner has challenged the illegal votes cast by the resident of Village Razaipur. Once they were included in the electoral list of Village Gohilawan, they could not be estopped from casting their votes. The revisional Court further found that the election petition was not properly verified in accordance with the provisions of CPC and that issues were not framed before deciding the election petition.

5. Shri K.S. Rathore has relied upon the judgment in A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 181, in which the Supreme Court held while interpreting Sections 64 (4) and 94 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 that the principle of “secrecy of ballot” must yield to the principle of purity of elections. There were allegations of double voting and reception of invalid votes in favour of the election petitioner. The election petition was amended so as to include 10 more cases of double voting. The corresponding amendment application by the appellant that these voters had also voted in the neighbouring constituency was rejected by the High Court. The second amendment application to include 23 more cases of alleged double voting was allowed and that the Court permitted inspection of counterfoils since several double voters were summoned to appear. In order to declare such vote as void, it must be proved that such a voter actually voted at both the places. In such case the question is not resoluble only by oral evidence. The sphere of enquiry in such case would be voting and not the name of the person to whom the vote was cast