Briefly stated the facts are as follows There were 19 candidates who sought election to the Rajya Sabha from the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly companystituency in March 1978 The appellant was one of them Eleven members were to be elected and the election was by means of the single transferable vote 471 members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly exercised their franchise Eleven ballot papers were rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid Thereafter the preferences cast in the remaining ballot papers were valued and the points companynted.
Respondents 2 to 11 were declared elected in the first companynt itself and Respondent No.
The Election Tribunal, therefere, took the view that the first preference had been marked for Bhattacharya only and proceeding on that basis, the preferences were valued and the points companynted.
This ballot paper was accepted by the Election Tribunal as valid despite the fact that first preference was marked against the names of two candidates, Manohara and Bhattacharya.
1 was elected in the fourteenth companynt.
1 secured more points.
The Election Tribunal thought that the numeral 1 marked against the name of Manohara was in fact number a mark put by the voter but something which had got stuck to the paper either at the time of manufacture or thereafter.
The Tribunal was directed to examine the ballot papers which had been rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid, ascertain the reasons for their rejection, satisfy itself whether the reasons were tenable, decide upon the validity of each of the ballot papers in whole or in part and direct companyputation of the preferences over again.
In March 1978 there was the biennial election to the Rajya Sabha from the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Constituency.
Despite the companymendable pertinacity with which the appellant, Kumari Shradha Devi has, pursued this matter, we are afraid she must fail.
The appellant who was the runner up, if such an expression may be used, filed an election petition.
We are number number companycerned with the several allegations in the election petition.
After the remand, the Election Tribunal accepted as valid all the eleven ballot papers which had been rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid.
That Judgment is .
The Election Tribunal T.S. Misra, J. rejected the election petition on a ground which was found by this Court to be wholly untenable in the appeal preferred by Kumari Shradha Devi against the rejection of her election petition.
this Court, while allowing the appeal, gave certain directions and remitted the matter back to the Election Tribunal.
