JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to respondent No. 1 (Election Tribunal, Meerut) quashing the order dated the 13th of December, 1958, by which the election petition against the petitioner was allowed, and for ancillary reliefs which are not relevant. 2. This petition arises out of election of members of the Municipal Board of the city of Meerut relating to ward No. 3 which is a three member constituency. Elections were held in the month of October, 1957. The petitioner (Shri Rajendra Pal) was one of the candidates from the general seat who was elected and secured 1,231 votes. Shri Abdul Rahman obtained 957 votes and he was also elected to the other general seat. The third seat was a reserve seat to which Shri Debi Dayal was elected. As a result of this election, an election petition was filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 21 and one Tejpal who is since dead and is not a party to this petition. This election petition was presented to Shri G. S. Singh Addl. Collector, Meerut on the 18th of November, 1957 when the Election Tribunal had not been appointed. The said Addl. Collector received the election petition and passed it on to Shri H. N. Kapoor, (respondent No. 1), who was subsequently appointed as Election Tribunal. With this petition a court-fee of Rs. 125/- was paid and security deposit of Rs. 100/- only was made. This was sufficient for one petition under the rules. But the contention of the applicant was that since election of three members was challenged in that petition, three separate court-fees and three security deposits ought to have been made. It was also objected that the presentation of this petition to the Addl. Collector (Shri G.S. Singh) was against law and vitiated the whole proceeding. 3. This election petition was contested and several issues were framed for decision. But all of them were decided in favour of the present petitioner and the election petition was dismissed so far as the other two candidates were concerned but was allowed only regarding the election of the petitioner (Shri Rajendra Pal) on the basis of only one instance of attempted impersonation by one Ram Kishore as Bhagwan Singh (Voter No. 1558). But all of them were decided in favour of the present petitioner and the election petition was dismissed so far as the other two candidates were concerned but was allowed only regarding the election of the petitioner (Shri Rajendra Pal) on the basis of only one instance of attempted impersonation by one Ram Kishore as Bhagwan Singh (Voter No. 1558). It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed. 4. In this petition learned counsel for the petitioner raised the preliminary issues relating to invalid presentation of the election petition and insufficiency of court-fees and security, apart from the merits of the case, and contended that the election petition should have been dismissed. 5. As regards the invalid presentation, it is enough to say that we agree with the Election Tribunal that the Addl. Collector had all the powers of the Collector and the presentation was not invalid. 6. Coming to the question of Court-fees and security deposit, it is not disputed that the court-fees and security deposit were sufficient for one election petition, but the contention of the learned counsel is that since the election of three candidates was challenged it must be treated as three separate petitions. Reliance is placed on Sec. 23 (2) (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which runs as follows: "23 (1) Except so far as may be otherwise provided by this Act or by rule, the procedure provided in the C. P. C. in regard to suits shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act or any rule and so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of election petitions: (2) Provided that - (a) two or more persons whose election is called in question may be made respondents to the same petition, and their cases may be tried at the same time, and any two or more election petitions may be heard together; but, so far as it is consistent with such joint trial or hearing, the petition shall be deemed to be a separate petition against each respondent." 7. We are unable to agree with this contention. This section only provides for the procedure to be followed at the hearing of a petition to which several respondents have been joined and does not affect the valid presentation of a petition which is covered by Sec. 22 (2). We are unable to agree with this contention. This section only provides for the procedure to be followed at the hearing of a petition to which several respondents have been joined and does not affect the valid presentation of a petition which is covered by Sec. 22 (2). The court-fee and security deposit is prescribed for each election petition and does not depend on the number of respondents. We see no force in the preliminary objections which were rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 8. Moreover, in view of the fact that we have decided to allow this petition on merits also, we do not consider it necessary to go into the details of these preliminary issues. 9. The contention of the learned counsel on merits is that the decision of the Election Tribunal is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the facts as alleged in the petition and found to have been proved, do not make out any corrupt practice as defined in Sec. 28 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary first to state in short the facts alleged in the election petition and found by the tribunal: 10. It was alleged by the petitioner in the election petition that Rajendra Pal got names of 225 persons, who were fictitious persons and in any case never resided in that Ward, entered on the electoral roll. Names of these persons were mentioned in Sch. D. They further alleged that votes in the names of 171 such persons mentioned in Sch. B were improperly admitted in favour of Shri Rajendra Pal. It was further alleged that votes in the names of three persons mentioned in Sch. A who were dead, were also improperly admitted in favour of Rajendra Pal. One instance of vote attempted to be procured falsely in the name of Bhagwan Singh at serial No. 127 in Sch. B was also given and it was alleged that Rajendra Pal himself attempted to procure vote in the name of Bhagwan Singh (Voter No. 1558) by falsely identifying one Ram Kishore as Bhagwan Singh before the Presiding Officer. 11. One instance of vote attempted to be procured falsely in the name of Bhagwan Singh at serial No. 127 in Sch. B was also given and it was alleged that Rajendra Pal himself attempted to procure vote in the name of Bhagwan Singh (Voter No. 1558) by falsely identifying one Ram Kishore as Bhagwan Singh before the Presiding Officer. 11. So far as the allegations relating to false entries in the voters list was concerned, the Tribunal was right in holding that under Sec. 19 (2) (a) of the Act, this question could not be reopened before the Tribunal. This section runs as follows: "19 (2) - The election of any person as a member of a board shall not be questioned (a) on the ground that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from, or the name of any person not qualified to vote has been inserted in the electoral roll or rolls." 12. The Election Tribunal has further held that no evidence whatsoever has been given with regard to the three persons mentioned in Sch. A who were alleged to have died before the election and whose votes were alleged to have been improperly procured. 13. The Tribunal has further held that these three persons were in fact alive and the allegations in the election petition to the contrary were wrong. 14. With regard to the 171 names which it was alleged had been wrongly included in the electoral roll and whose votes had been improperly admitted in favour of Rajendra Pal, the Tribunal was unable to find in favour of the election petitioners; only a general statement had been made and no particular instance was definitely proved. 15. The election petition has, however, been allowed against Rajendra Pal only upon the basis of the one instance in which an attempt is alleged to have been made by Rajendra Pal to get the vote of Bhagwan Singh voter by impersonation through Ram Kishore. In regard to this incident, the Tribunal found that the name of this Bhagwan Singh (voter No. 1558) was added to the electoral roll by an application which was filed by Rajendra Pal himself as an agent of Bhagwan Singh. He was shown as resident of house No. 649. In regard to this incident, the Tribunal found that the name of this Bhagwan Singh (voter No. 1558) was added to the electoral roll by an application which was filed by Rajendra Pal himself as an agent of Bhagwan Singh. He was shown as resident of house No. 649. According to the Tribunal probably there was no such man as Bhagwan Singh residing in house No. 649 and it was not satisfied that it was the name of the genuine voter which had been got entered in the electoral roll. On the date of polling one Ram Kishore impersonating himself to be Bhagwan Singh presented himself at the polling booth. Suspicion was cast and after Ram Kishore had obtained his identity slip in the name of Bhagwan Singh (Voter No. 1558), and was trying to obtain ballot paper, his identity was challenged. The usual procedure was gone through and ultimately it was discovered that Ram Kishore was not Bhagwan Singh. It was also found that Rajendra Pal himself identified Ram Kishore before the Presiding Officer as voter Bhagwan Singh but later Ram Kishore himself admitted that he was not Bhagwan Singh and he was not allowed to vote. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged these findings and contended that the evidence was not sufficient to come to these conclusions. We do not propose to go into the evidence as we think it is not the scope of this petition to scrutinise the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. But in our opinion, even upon these findings, no corrupt practice as defined by Sec. 28 of the U.P. Municipalities Act has been established against the petitioner. 16. The relevant part of Sec. 28 defining corrupt practices is as follows: "28 - A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person - (i)................. (;)...................... (iii )......................... gives or procures the giving of a vote in the name of a voter who is not the person giving such vote; (iv) abets within the meaning of the I. P. C. the doing of any of the acts specified in cls. (i), (ii) and (iii)..............." 17. In respect of this incident no other corrupt practice is even alleged to have been committed by Rajendra Pal. It may be noted here that in cl. (i), (ii) and (iii)..............." 17. In respect of this incident no other corrupt practice is even alleged to have been committed by Rajendra Pal. It may be noted here that in cl. (iii) above, what is a corrupt practice is either giving of a vote or procuring the giving of a vote, so that in both instances the vote should have been given and under cl. (iv) the above two acts must have been abetted. Therefore, the essence of this corrupt practice covered either by cl. (iii) or cl. (iv) above, is the giving of a vote in the name of a voter who is not the person giving such vote. 18. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner here is that before this corrupt practice is established, the vote must have been given and since in this case, even upon the facts found by the Tribunal, Ram Kishore was not permitted to give vote, no corrupt practice had been proved. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that voting is not the last act of putting the ballot-paper into the ballot-box but is a continuous process which starts when the voter comes into a polling booth and ends when he has put his ballot paper into the box. Reliance was placed on the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 64. 20. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents because after a person comes into a polling booth, the first thing to be done is to establish the identity of the person whether he is a voter on the roll or not and the process of preliminary checking up cannot be said to be a process of voting. It may help in the ultimate act of voting but cannot itself be voting. Voting means expressing one's opinion on a particular point and nobody can be said to have voted unless he has so indicated his opinion. Obviously therefore the process of voting cannot start until the voter has obtained the ballot paper and has at least started the act of expressing his opinion. In this case Ram Kishore did not even receive the ballot-paper and it is not possible to hold that he had voted as Bhagwan Singh. Obviously therefore the process of voting cannot start until the voter has obtained the ballot paper and has at least started the act of expressing his opinion. In this case Ram Kishore did not even receive the ballot-paper and it is not possible to hold that he had voted as Bhagwan Singh. The case cited interpreted the word "election" as meaning the whole process by which votes were taken and the result finally declared. It has no application to the present case. 21. In the result we are of opinion that upon the facts found by the Tribunal no corrupt practice has been proved against the petitioner. There was thus an error apparent on the face of the record and the order of the Tribunal must be quashed. 22. We, therefore, allow the petition with costs and quash the order dated the 13th of December, 1958.