If the said rejected ballot paper had been received as valid, the appellant would have the proportionate number of preference votes and would have been declared elected.
4th Respondent 32 6.
2nd Respondent 31 4.
1 to 6 were declared as duly elected and the appellant was declared as having lost the election.
The second companytention raised by the appellant was that three ballot papers which did number companytain the figure 1 in the space intended for marking the said figure should have been rejected and the same were wrongly accepted.
3rd Respondent 3300 5.
5th Respondent 3301 7.
Both the mistakes according to the appellant materially affected the result of the election.
It is submitted by learned companynsel for the appellant, that 1 the first preference vote in his favour in which first preference was indicated on the ballot paper in green ink was wrongly rejected.
4th Respondent 3301 6.
6th Respondent 3301 In companysequence, respondents number.
The said ballot paper is hereinafter referred to as the said rejected ballot paper.
1st Respondent 3301 3.
The rejection of the said ballot paper by the Returning Officer was duly objected to by the appellant at the time of companynting.
7th Respondent nil Out of the 33 first preference votes cast in favour of the appellant, one ballot paper was rejected by the 8th respondent, the Returning Officer, on the ground that the said ballot paper was marked by the voter otherwise than with the article supplied for that purpose.
6th Respondent 34 8.
The appellant and respondents number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal from a judgment and order delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on April 24, 1987 dismissing an election petition filed by the appellant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.
It may be men tioned here that the first preference was indicated on the said ballot paper by a ball point pen with green ink whereas in the ball point pen kept along with the ballot box had blue ink.
The election was held, as scheduled, on June 28, 1986.
The appellant herein was the petitioner before the High Court and the respondents number.
Ram Jethmalani, Ms. Rani Jethmalani and M.G. Ramachan dran for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 of 1986.
1987 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No.
1 to 7 were the eight candidates in the field, all the numberinations having been found valid.
1 to 8 herein were arraigned as respondents in the same order in the election petition.
The dispute pertains to the election of six Members to the Rajya Sabha by the elected Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
K. Garg, S. Padmanabhan, K. Raj.
2nd Respondent 3270 4.
Choudhary, R. Mohan, Chandrashekharan, R. Ayyam Perumal, V. Krishnamurthy, S. Thananjayan, K.V. Vijaya Kumar, A.V. Rangam and V.R. Kari thi kayan for the Respondents.
3rd Respondent 33 5.
1577 NCE of 1987.
These ballot papers had been used for casting first preference votes in favour of the first respondent and if the same had been rejected, first respondent would number have been elected and in his place the appellant would have been elected.
The 8th respondent was the Returning Officer.
The particulars of the said working result sheets are as follows Appellant 3219 2.
5th Respondent 34 7.
The polling took place, as scheduled, on June 28, 1986 and, immediately thereafter, the ballot box was opened and the votes were sorted out.
1st Respondent 35 3.
The election was under the preferential system of voting and the particulars of the first preferences votes cast and secured by the candidates are as follows Candidates First Preference Votes Appellant 33 2.
