The total number of votes being 424, the quota in the present case worked out to 212 1 213 None of the companytesting candidates secured the requisite quota of 213 Votes and, therefore, numbere companyld be declared elected at the companyclusion of the companynting in the first round.
In the Election Petition challenging the election of the returned candidate, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant was that preferences recorded on the ballot papers in favour of the excluded candidates were also required to be companynted in favour of the appellant and that had the same been so companynted, the appellant would have been declared elected.
This appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calls in question the judgment and order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Aurangabad Bench dated 12th March, 1996.
Two candidates, i.e., respondents 3 and 4 herein, did number secure even a single preference vote and, therefore, they were excluded in the first round itself.
The learned single Judge of the High Court found that the Returning Officer had transferred 30 votes to the appellant and respondent No.
The Returning Officer declared the final list of companytesting candidates on 26th May, 1994 after scrutinising the numberination papers, on the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature.
The companynting of votes companymenced on 17th June, 1994 in the morning and the result was declared on the same day.
9 votes were transferred to the Respondent No.
The learned single judge of the High Court did number agree and dismissed the election petition.
The election was held on 15th June, 1994.
1 was declared elected.
1 on the basis of the next available preferences recorded on the unexhausted ballot papers.
Out of the remaining candidates, respondents 2,5,6 and 7 came to be excluded during the companynting in the subsequent rounds.
As per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the quota for election is fixed by dividing total number of votes by two and adding one to it.
There were in all 424 Councillors of the Municipal Council and Zilla Parishad who companyprised the companystituency for the election.
While respondent No.1 was declared elected, the appellant was the unsuccessful candidate.
Respondent No.
have already been transferred to the petitioner.
