ORDER : This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from holding repoll in respect of Polling Station No. 234/1. 2. The facts material for the disposal of the petition as alleged are these : 3. The petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 were the contesting candidates for the office of Fradhan for Langmeidong Gramsabha, constituted under the U.P. Panchayet Raj Act (Rules ?), 1947 as extended to the Union Territory of Manipur. That in accordance with Rule 75 read with Chapter V of the said Rules the election to the office of Pradhan was held in the month of January, 1964 in 4 Polling Stations, viz. Nos. 233/1, 234/1, 234/2 and 235/1. After the close of the Poll the counting of votes was done according to Rule 63-N of the said Rules, and 370 ballot papers were found not bearing the distinguishing mark prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 63-E in the ballot boxes at Polling Station No. 234/1 and therefore they were rejected under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 63-0 of the said Rule. After the completion of counting, the statements in form 45 recording the total number of votes polled, by each candidate were submitted by the concerned Presiding Officer to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 as the returning officer verified the polling returns under Rule 64 of the said Rules, but he did not prepare any election return in a specified form setting forth the results of the election. But the provision of Rules 66 and 67 read with Rule 73 of the said Rules, imposes a legal duty on the respondent No. 1 as the returning officer to declare the result of the said election, record the result to the D.M. and inform the Secretary of the said Cram Sabha. 4. But the respondent instead of declaring the result of the election of the three candidates informed the petitioner under his office Memo No. THDB/20/(P)/CV/62-64 dated the 6th March, 1964 that the repoll would be held in the polling Station No. 234/1 on account of the non-marking of distinguishing marks on the ballot papers found in the ballot boxes of the said polling Station. 5. 5. Thereupon the petitioner issued demand notice dated 25-3-1964 to the respondents 1 to 3 for declaration of the result of the aforesaid election and for refraining from holding the repoll in respect of Polling Station No. 234/1. The respondents neither gave reply to the demand notice nor performed the mandatory duty imposed by statute on them, therefore the petitioner has no other alternative but to file this writ petition. The respondent No. 5 did not appear to contest the petition despite service. The respondent No. 4 appeared on service but he did not contest it. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 reply was filed on 7-9-1964 admitting the material allegations of the petitioner. The only contention of the respondents is that due to the mistake committed by the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station No. 234/1 the distinguishing marks as prescribed, by the District Magistrate under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 63-E were not put on the ballot papers therefore on the principle of natural justice and good conscience the Director of Panchayets on 4-2-1964 ordered for a fresh Poll of that particular Polling Station. This impugned order is, therefore, legal and valid and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate and perused the writ petition, reply filed by the respondents and the annexures. 7. The sole point for determination in that writ petition is whether the impugned order dated 4-2-1964 is legal and valid or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in this case this is an admitted fact that 370 ballot papers of the polling Station No. 234/1 did not bear the distinguishing mark prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 63-E therefore they were rightly rejected under Sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 63-0. Therefore on completion of counting the statements were submitted by the concerned Presiding Officer to the respondent No. 1 as the returning officer. The respondent No. 1 as the returning officer verified the polling returns under R. 64 of the said Rules but he did not prepare any election return in a specified form setting forth the results of the election. Under the provision of Rules 66 and 67 read with Rule 73 of the said Rules it was mandatory for the respondent No. 1 as the returning officer to declare the result of the election. Under the provision of Rules 66 and 67 read with Rule 73 of the said Rules it was mandatory for the respondent No. 1 as the returning officer to declare the result of the election. But he failed to perform his legal duty. Now he wants to have repelling at the polling Station No. 234 /1 against the rules. But when the rules and Act are silent for a fresh polling, in that case how could he have recoiling on the ore text of irregularity committed by the Presiding Officer. Moreover he cannot take the shelter under the principles of natural justice, as natural justice and good conscience cannot override the express provisions of law in force. When Rule 63-0 Sub-Rule 2 specifically provides that the ballot papers without distinguishing marks shall be rejected, in that case he has no other alternative but to reject the ballot papers and declare the result. There are only two rules viz. 57 and 58 under which there can be fresh polls. In the instant case the order of the Returning Officer for repelling is in contravention of the provision of law and rules made thereunder, therefore it should be set aside and he be directed to declare the result. 8. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand frankly conceded that Rules and the Act are silent for a fresh polling. But he contended that the distinguishing marks were not given by the mistake of the Presiding Officer therefore on the principle of natural justice and good conscience the respondent No. 2 on 4-2-1964 ordered for a fresh Doll. 9. This contention of the Government Advocate is without any substance. The repelling can be done only under Rules 57 and 58. There is no other rule and law under which there can be rep oiling. The principles of natural justice and good conscience too cannot override the express provisions of law in force. The respondents have no authority to make up any deficiency or omission in the statute or rules thereunder. The respondents therefore, have no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The impugned order or decision is therefore, illegal. In this case respondents failed to perform the mandatory duty imposed on them by the statute, therefore this Court has no other alternative but. to accept the writ petition. 10. The respondents therefore, have no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The impugned order or decision is therefore, illegal. In this case respondents failed to perform the mandatory duty imposed on them by the statute, therefore this Court has no other alternative but. to accept the writ petition. 10. I, therefore, accept the writ petition and order the respondents to declare the result of the said election without holding a repoll. 11. The respondents No. 1 to 3 will pay Rs. 100/- as Advocates fee. Petition allowed.