An election can only be declared void based on substantial evidence and specific grounds enumerated in the governing election rules.

1.Heard.
This petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 26-12-2012 by which the Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 declaring the election of the petitioner / returned candidate void.

2. Brief resumption of relevant facts necessary for decision of the petition are that election to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Chilfi was conducted on 31-1-2010 under the provisions of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam , 1993 (for short 'Panchayat Act' ) and C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'Panchayat Election Petitions Rules'). In the said election, the petitioner was declared having received highest number of votes i.e. 297 amongst all the candidates including respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared elected and declaration to that effect was issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the election of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 preferred an election petition under S.122 of the Panchayat Act. The Election Tribunal / SDO passed an order on 14-3-2011 directing recount of ballet papers. This order was challenged by filing a writ petition (C) No. 2583/2011. In the meantime, recount was done and vide order dated 5-5-2011, petitioner's election was declared void and respondent No. 1 / the election petitioner was declared elected.

3. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 28-8-2012. It was held that there was no proper trial of the election petition. The order directing recount and subsequent declarations were held illegal and set aside. The Election Tribunal was directed to hold the trial afresh after framing issues, recording evidence on the issues and decide the election petition in accordance with law.

4. The election Tribunal, thereafter, framed issue in the election petition and after affording the parties to election petition, opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence, passed impugned order which has given rise to this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order setting aside petitioner's election, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the election petitioner failed to prove by leading any admissible, oral or documentary evidence that any corrupt practice was played by the petitioner or by his agent or by any other person with consent of election agent. He further submitted that election petitioner failed to lead any evidence nor was any other material produced before the Election Tribunal that votes were cast either in the name of dead persons or in the name of those, who had already migrated from the Gram Panchayat area. It is next contended that the election petitioner did not come out with specific pleading, much less proof that any of the votes cast in favour of election petitioner were improperly accepted nor could prove that any valid vote cast in favour of election petitioner was illegally rejected. Even then, the Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition on conjecture and surmise and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the election petition has been rightly allowed because there is abundance of evidence to prove improper acceptance of votes in favour of the petitioner and further that false votes were cast during election. He submits that specific pleadings regarding false votes being cast during election were not denied. Therefore, in the absence of any such denial, the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the returned candidate, has been