Judgment :- 1. The petitioner and the first respondent stood for election as President of the Koipuram Panchayat. The second respondent presided over the meeting convened for the purpose. A poll was taken by the second respondent. The votes were found to be equal and therefore the second respondent drew lots, and the petitioner was declared elected. 2. Under S.24(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, Act 32 of 1960, when there is equality of votes the Presiding Officer shall decide the result of the election by drawing lots. In drawing the lots the second respondent adopted the following procedure. He wrote the names of the candidates separately on two slips of papers, rolled them up and put them in a tin. Then he wrote the words 'elected' and 'eliminated' on two slips of papers, rolled the two slips and put them in another tin. He picked up one slip of paper from each tin more or less simultaneously. It was found on the draw so made that the name of the first respondent came up along with the word "eliminated". The second respondent picked up the remaining two slips of papers and found the petitioner's name along with the slip containing the word 'elected'. The second respondent therefore declared the petitioner elected. 3. The first respondent thereupon filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, and the Election Tribunal found that the procedure adopted by the second respondent in drawing the lots was unauthorised. The Tribunal therefore set aside the election of the petitioner as President and declared the first respondent as elected. 4. Mr. Easwara Iyer, appearing for the petitioner, raised two points, namely, (1) that the procedure adopted by the second responded was m conformity with law and (2) that even if it is found that the procedure was wrong the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare the first respondent elected as President. 5. S.24 (1) (a) of the Panchayats Act is as follows : "24(1) (a) Every Panchayat shall elect one of its members to be its President and another member to be its Vice-President. The meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President shall be called on any day before the date on which the new Panchayat is to assume office by the Tahsildar. The meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President shall be called on any day before the date on which the new Panchayat is to assume office by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar shall himself preside or appoint a person not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar to preside over the meeting for the election of the President. The person so presiding shall have no right to vote. In case of equality of votes, the result of the election of the President shall be decided by lots to be drawn by the person presiding at the meeting, in such manner as he may determine". Lot is a contrivance to determine a question by an appeal to chance or divine agency. The only thing to be observed in drawing lots is that there should be no human intervention to determine the question. It is nowhere laid down that in drawing lots any particular method should be followed. In Parker's "Election Agent and Returning Officer" (5th Edition) page 214, it is stated: "Where an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of vote would entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer shall forthwith decide between the candidates by lot and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot fell had received an additional vote. No particular method of deciding' by lot' is prescribed and the Returning Officer may adopt any method of doing so that he considers suitable. The provision is mandatory and binding alike on the Returning Officer and the candidates." In Halsbury's Laws of England, third Edition, Volume 14, page 142. Para.245, it is observed "When, after the counting of the votes (including any recount) is completed an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates, and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer must forthwith decide between those candidates by lot and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received an additional vote." These observations are based on the provisions in the English statute. Originally in England under S.2 of the Ballot Act, 1872 (now repealed), the Returning; Officer could give a casting vote either orally or in writing when an equality of votes was found. Now, under the present law, the decision has to be by lot. Originally in England under S.2 of the Ballot Act, 1872 (now repealed), the Returning; Officer could give a casting vote either orally or in writing when an equality of votes was found. Now, under the present law, the decision has to be by lot. The candidate on whom the lot falls should be deemed to have received an additional vote. Therefore the observations quoted above are no guide for deciding the question in this case. 6. In Shanmughasundaram v. Marudachala Gounder (1963 - I M.L.J. 291) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had to construe R.17 of the Rules under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, which provides : "(1) If the number of candidates is two, the candidate who obtains the largest number of votes shall be declared to have been duly elected. If there be an equality of votes between the two candidates and the addition of one vote to any one of such candidates will entitle him to be declared duly elected, the president of the meeting shall decide by drawing lots in the presence of the members to which one of such candidates such additional vote shall be deemed to have been given. (2) If the number of candidates is three and if any one of them secures more than one-half of the number of votes he shall be declared to have been duly elected. If none of them secured more than one-half of the number of votes, the candidate who obtains the smallest number of votes shall be eliminated and a second ballot taken. If there is an equality of votes among all the candidates, the president of the meeting shall ascertain by casting lots in the presence of the members present which of such candidate shall be eliminated. The second ballot shall be conducted and the result declared in accordance with the provisions of the said sub-rule (1). (3) If the number of candidates is more than three and if any of the candidates secures more than one-half of the number of votes, he shall be declared to have been duly elected. If none of the candidates secures more than one-half of the number of votes the first candidate who secures the largest number of votes and the second candidate who secures the next largest number shall be retained and the others eliminated and the second ballot taken. If none of the candidates secures more than one-half of the number of votes the first candidate who secures the largest number of votes and the second candidate who secures the next largest number shall be retained and the others eliminated and the second ballot taken. In the event of there being an equality of votes between more than one candidate affecting the determination of which one of them secures the second largest number of votes the President of the meeting shall draw lots in the presence of the members present and the candidate whose name is first drawn shall be deemed to have secured the second largest number of votes. The second ballot shall be conducted and the results declared in accordance with the provisions of the said sub-rule (1)." In that case the returning officer drew lots and the person whose name was drawn first was eliminated and the other declared duly elected. It was held that the returning officer went wrong in declaring that the person in whose favour the lot fell was not elected. It was said that so far as the choice is concerned the rule has always been that a person who wins the lot has to be declared as elected and that it is not the other way about. The rule which fell for consideration in the Madras case is different from the section which I have to construe. When the Madras rule specifically stated that the person in whose favour the lot is drawn should be deemed to have received an additional vote, the returning officer had no authority to say that he should be eliminated. 7. Mr. Easwara Iyer submitted that under S.24(1) (a) of Act 32 of 1960 (Kerala) the Presiding Officer is given the discretion to decide the manner in which he would draw the lots. If the procedure adopted was such as to ensure the determination of the result of the election by chance alone, I cannot say on the wording of S.24(1)(a) that the procedure adopted was wrong. 8. If the procedure adopted was such as to ensure the determination of the result of the election by chance alone, I cannot say on the wording of S.24(1)(a) that the procedure adopted was wrong. 8. Counsel for the respondent relied upon R.7(2) of the Kerala Panchayats (Election of President and Vice-President) Rules, 1963 and submitted that the voting and the elimination shall be repeated until two candidates only are left when the votes shall be taken for the last time and the candidate who secures the larger number of valid votes shall be declared elected and that "in the event of there being an equality of votes between the two candidates in the case of an election of the President, the procedure laid down in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of S.24 of the Act shall be followed", and therefore there can be no elimination of the candidate whose name came out first in the draw. I am not satisfied that the method adopted by the second respondent was a process of elimination. There is no substance in the contention, that, because in this particular instance the slip containing the word ' eliminated ' came along with the name of the first respondent first, the process adopted by the second respondent was a process of eliminating the candidate whose name came out first in the draw. The object of drawing lots is, as I have said, to decide a matter by appeal to chance and in the procedure adopted by the second respondent it would very well have been the case that the slip containing the word 'elected' would have come up along with the name of the first respondent. The definite finding of the Election Tribunal is that this procedure was adopted with the acquiescence of the parties and that no objection was raised by either the first respondent or the petitioner to the result of the election being determined by this method of drawing lots. It was argued for the first respondent that the procedure adopted by the second respondent would lead to human intervention as the second respondent could have stopped after having drawn the slip containing the name of the first respondent and declared the first respondent as elected without drawing from the other tin. It was argued for the first respondent that the procedure adopted by the second respondent would lead to human intervention as the second respondent could have stopped after having drawn the slip containing the name of the first respondent and declared the first respondent as elected without drawing from the other tin. But that could not be in this case, because it was declared in the presence of the parties that the second respondent was going to adopt the procedure followed by him, and that was not objected to by the parties. Therefore it cannot be said that there was any possibility of human intervention in the method adopted. I therefore think that the Election Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in setting aside the election of the petitioner as President of Panchayat and declaring the first respondent as elected. In this view, the second, point argued by Mr. Easwara Iyer for the petitioner does hot arise for consideration. I quash the order of the Election Tribunal and allow the writ petition, but without any order to costs. Allowed.