J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 27th day of September, 2021 The petitioner, who is an elected member of Nemmara Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District seeks to declare that his vote cast on 11.01.2021 for electing Reserved Lady Member to the Development Standing Committee of the Nemmara Grama Panchayat, as valid and consequently, to declare that the election of the additional 5th respondent as Reserved Lady Member to the Development Standing Committee and subsequent election of the Chairperson of the said Committee, as invalid.

2. The petitioner was elected to the 3rd respondent-

Nemmara Grama Panchayat as Member from Ward No.1. In the election to the Reserved Lady Member of Development Standing Committee held on 11.01.2021, two candidates namely, Miss. Usha Raveendran and Miss. Sruthi Raj S., contested. The petitioner cast his vote in favour of Miss. Sruthi Raj S. When counting began, members favouring the other candidate raised objection and the 2nd respondent- Returning Officer declared the vote cast by the petitioner as invalid.

3. The writ petition was filed before the election of the Chairperson of the Development Standing Committee. In the said election, the additional 5th respondent was elected as Chairperson. The petitioner thereupon amended the writ petition challenging the election of the additional 5th respondent as Chairperson.

4. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioner’s vote and declared it as invalid when the petitioner has complied with all the requirements under Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000. The 2nd respondent cannot reject the petitioner’s vote other than in the manner prescribed under Rule 8(4). Therefore, the election of the Reserved Lady Member and Chairperson to the Development Standing Committee is liable to be declared as illegal, contended the petitioner.

5. The 1st respondent-State Election Commission filed a statement dated 28.01.2021. The 1st respondent stated that as evident from the averments in the writ petition and from Ext.P2, the petitioner has recorded the vote in figure and there were other markings in column. Since the intention of the petitioner as disclosed by the vote cast by him was not clear, the Returning Officer has rejected the petitioner's vote as invalid. The Returning Officer cannot make a choice or make an inference while counting the priority votes and since the intention of the voter as regards his priority cannot be ascertained, the vote has been declared invalid. The voting is as per the system of proportional representation by single transferable vote and the pattern of vote cast by the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000. There is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter affidavit. The respondents stated that when the counting of votes were carried out by the 2nd respondent, seemingly, the petitioner's ballot paper was bearing a numerical mark of “1” with an another ink marking or something like that in the same column intended for the Miss. Sruthi Raj, as seen in Ext.P3 produced by the petitioner. As submitted by the petitioner, when the counting of votes was carried out by the 2nd respondent, some of the members raised objection regarding manner of petitioner's vote. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent has ruled against the petitioner and rejected his vote.

7. Since the 2nd respondent is the authorised Returning Officer to conduct the election, he ruled against the petitioner's plea, and declared petitioner's vote as invalid one. It is very pertinent to note that the 3rd and 4th respondents herein have no more role in the matter of dispute of the petitioner except as witness to the conducting of said election. Therefore, the 3rd and 4th respondents are not necessary parties.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learn