1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of Commissioner, Jabalpur passed in Case No.70/B-121/2012-13 decided on 18.2.2014. By this order, the election petition of the petitioner filed under section 66-A of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 was rejected by the learned Commissioner.

2. The petitioner and private respondents submitted their nomination for the post of 'vyapar pratinidhi'. As per the election result, petitioner secured 29 votes whereas respondent No.2 secured 31 votes and was declared as elected. The petitioner filed the election petition under section 66-A of the Adhiniyam of 1972 before the learned Commissioner. After inviting response of the other side, recording the evidence, the learned Commissioner rejected the election petition.

3. Criticizing the said order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the election the respondents published the voter list (Annexure-P/2). The voter list reflects that the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar were mentioned at two places. Alok Kumar, s/o Mahesh Kumar name is mentioned at serial Nos. 17 and 71, whereas name of Sushil Kumar, s/o Vitthaldas is repeated shown at serials No.34 and 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the findings given in para 22 of the impugned order dated 18.2.2014, it is clear that Alok Kumar had cast his vote twice. Accordingly, in view of this finding, it is clear that election was improperly conducted. Hence, learned Commissioner should have set aside the election. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 84-B of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan) Rules, 1997. He submits that Rule 84-B(2)(d)(iii) is attracted in the present case. In view of improper receipt of votes, the election must be declared as void. In support of findings at para 22 of the impugned order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of Tehsildar/Assistant Returning Officer dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure-P/9).

4. Per-contra, Mr. Subodh Kather, learned G.A. and Mr. G.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. Mr. Baghel, by taking this Court to the averments of election petition contended that there is no pleading in the petition that the votes cast by Shri Alok Kumar at more than one occasion were cast in favour of respondent No.2. No amount of evidence was led by election petitioner in this regard. Shri Narayan Singh Patel PW2 entered the witness box who was polling agent of the petitioner. He admitted that he had not preferred any written objection or complaint against voting done by Shri Alok Kumar on more than one occasion. He further admitted that in such cases, written complaint should have been preferred. Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on Rule 89 of the Rules of 1997 and contended that in a democracy, the secrecy of votes is of utmost importance. The votes are sacrosanct and same cannot be disclosed without any authority of law. Rule 89 makes it clear that while keeping the material in the custody of Election Officer, the same shall not be opened, inspected or produced by any authority except with the order of competent Court or authority. In absence of any such order by competent Court or authority, there was no occasion for the Returning Officer to inspect the record and prepare the report (AnnexureP/9). In nutshell, the stand of the respondents is that the necessary ingredients for attracting Rule 84-B of Rules of 1997 are not available in the present case.

5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in the light of stand taken by the parties.

7. No doubt the voter list contains the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar on more than one place. However, mere repetition of names of the voter w