GANESH NAGARAO RAUT DUDHAGAONKAR versus RAJANI SHANKARRAO SATAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 09-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M. SRINIVASAN, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
GANESHNAGARAORAUTDUDHAGAONKAR 
A 
v. 
RAJANI SHANKARRAO SATAV AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. SRINIVASAN AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Election-Counting-Exhausted ballot paper-Treatment of-Ballot 
papers marked in favour of eliminated candidates and not containing any 
preference in favour of any of the continuing candidates-Held, Such ballot 
papers were rightly declared as exhausted and not counted in favour of any C 
of continuing candidates-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 75(3), 
71(/), 71(8) and 74. 
There were in all 424 Councillors of the Municipal Council and Zilla 
Parishad who comprised the constituency for election. As per the Conduct 
of the Election Rules, 1961, the quota for election was fixed by dividing total D 
number of votes by two adding one to it. The total number of votes being 424, 
the quota in the present case worked out to be 212+1=213. None of the 
contesting candidates secured the required quota of213 votes and, therefore, 
none could be declared elected at the conclusion of the counting in the first 
round. Two candidates, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who did not secure even a E 
single preference vote, were excluded in the first round itself. While out of 
the remaining candidates, who were excluded in the subsequent round of 
counting, respondent No.I was declared elected, while the appellant was the 
unsuccessful candidate. 
In the Election Petition filed by the appellant before the High Court, F 
a plea was raised by the appellant that preferance recorded on the ballot 
papers of the excluded candidates were also required to be counted in favour 
of tl\e appellant. The High Court found that the Returning Officer had 
transferred 30 votes to the appellant and respondent No. 1 on the basis of 
the next available preferences recorded on the unexhausted ballot papers. 
Rest of the ballot papers were found exhausted, meaning thereby that there G 
was no preference cast in favour of any of the continuing candidates. The 
break-up of the transferred votes was that the appellant secured 21 transferred 
voted while respondent No. I secured 9 votes, out of the transferred votes on 
the unexhausted ballot papers. But the High Court dismissed the petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
463 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: J.1. The Conduct of Election Rules 1961, provides for the 
manner of counting and in Rule 74, it lays down that the ballot papers should 
be arranged in parcels according to the first preference, recorded for each 
of the contested candidate and that credit be given to the concerned candidate 
B of the value of the ballot papers in his parcels. Rules 75(3) details the 
procedure when at the end of the counting no candidate can be declared 
elected having obtained the requisite quota. [465-G-H; 466-AI 
1.2. The observations made by the High Court are completely in accord 
with the scheme of the Rules contained in Chapter 7 of the Conduct of 
C Election Rules, 1961 and particularly of Ruic 75(3) read with Rules 71(1) 
and 71(8) of the Conduct of Election Rules which define "exhausted" and 
"unexhausted" ballot papers. It is only such a ballot paper which can be 
transferred, which has not been exhausted. Where the ballot paper has 
already been exhausted since either further preference was not in favour of 
D any continuing candidate or there was no further preference cast at all, any 
preference recorded on such ballot papers could not be transferred to any 
candidate. The 71 votes which the appellant claims to get counted in his 
favour fell in that category and were rightly declared as "exhausted" and 
were not counted in favour of any of the continuing candidates because 
preference recorded on those ballot papers was in favour of the eliminated 
E candidates. [467-A-B-C[ 
F 
G 
Dattatraya Eknath lanke v. Re111rning Officer, Amravati and Ors., AIR 
(1986) Born. 354. approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12571 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.96 of the Bombay High Court 
in E.P. No. I of 1994. 
A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant. 
U.U. Lalit and Ms. Aprajita Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People 
H Act. 1951 calls in question the judgment and order made by the High Court 
G.N.R. DUDHAGAONY.AR v. R.S. SAT AV 
465 
of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12th M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.