GOPIVALLABHA IYENGAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner and respondents 2 and 4 were declared elected to the town Panchayat Committee of Muddebihal. The first respondent challenged the election on several grounds in Misc. Election Petition No. 1 of 1968 before the Munsiff, Muddebihal. Three issues came up for consideration. They are: (i) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties imambu and the Presiding Officer ? (ii) Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the election ? (iii) Whether the petitioner has proved that there are sufficient grounds to recount the votes and declare that he is elected as a returned candidate ? ( 2 ) ON the first two issues, the learned Munsiff held against the petitioner in the Election Petition. But on the third issue, the learned Munsiff held that there were sufficient grounds for recounting, and on such recounting, set aside the election of the petitioner before us and declared respondens 1, 2 and 3 elected. The resulting position was that the petitioner, who was respondent 3 in the Election Petition, was unseated. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order of the Munsiff, Muddebihal in Miscellaneous Election Petition No. 1 of 1968 and dt. 17th January 1969 be quashed. ( 3 ) SRI Vijayashankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one ground to support his contenion that the order of the learned munsiff is unsustainable. His contention is that having held that the petitioner in the Election Petition has failed to prove that there are sufficient grounds to set aside the election on the several pleas that come within the scope of S. 13 (3) (A) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards act, 1959 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was not open to the learned Munsiff to proceed to recount the votes and declare the result of the election on the basis of such recounting, acting under s. 13 (3) (B) of the Act. This contention is urged before us as the provisions of S. 13 (3) (B) preclude any acticn being taken under that provision if the grounds urged in the petition come within the scope of S. 13 (3) (A) of the Act. This contention is urged before us as the provisions of S. 13 (3) (B) preclude any acticn being taken under that provision if the grounds urged in the petition come within the scope of S. 13 (3) (A) of the Act. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Ningappa rangappa v. Munsiff, Gokak, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 620 in support of this contention. To understand the scope of the contention and the applicability of the decision on which reliance is placed, it is necessary to sef out the concerned provisions of law S. 13 (3) reads as follows :"13. Determination of validity of elections. (1) and (2 ). . . . . . . L. J. 620 in support of this contention. To understand the scope of the contention and the applicability of the decision on which reliance is placed, it is necessary to sef out the concerned provisions of law S. 13 (3) reads as follows :"13. Determination of validity of elections. (1) and (2 ). . . . . . . (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) (A) if the Munsiff is of opinion (B) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, so far as it concerns returned candidate, has been materially affected (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by a person other than that candidate or his election agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or his election agent; (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any Rules or orders made under this Act, the Munsiff shall declare the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected; (B) If in anv case to which clause (A) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the munsiff shall, after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each such candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the greatest number of valid votes in his favour to have been duly elected: provided that, for the purposes of such computation, no vote shall be reckoned as valid if the Munsiff finds that it was given by an unqualified person or any corrupt practice was committed by any person, known or unknown, in giving or obtaining it: provided further that after such computation if an equality of votes is found to exist between anv candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle anv of the candidates to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, seized by lot drawn in the presence of the Munsiff in such manner as he may determine. " ( 4 ) IT is pointed out that under clause (B) it is provided that it can apply only if the grounds urged in the Election Petition do not come under clause (A ). It appears to us that the provisions do not permit such a broad contention What is provided under clause (B) is that it applies to any case to which clause (A) does not apply. Tt does not provide that if the grounds on which the election is challenged come under clause (A), clause (B) does not apply. It must be noticed that both under clauses (A) and (B), the Munsiff is vested with the power to come to a decision on the result of the election. Under clause (A), the Munsiff is empowered to declare the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidates to have been duly elected. Under clause (B) the Munsiff is vested with the power to make a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each of the candidates and to declare the candidate who is found to have the greatest number of valid votes, to have been duly elected. The first proviso to clause (B) is also verv significant It provides that the Munsiff has t0 reject the vote cast by an unqualified person or if anv corrupt practice is committed bv any person, known or unknown, in giving or obtaining the vote. The casting of vote by an unqualified person or committing of corrupt practice by a person known or unknown, are all matters which come within the purview of clause, (A) sub-clause (d) (ii) and (iii) of the Act. Therefore, it appears to us that clause (B) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 13 of the Act does not exclude all the grounds covered by clause (A) except in cases where those grounds are enough to successfully challenge the election under clause (A ). Therefore, it is open to the learned Munsiff to proceed to embark upon a scrutiny and computation of votes, if no relief is granted on grounds coming within the purview of clause (A) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 13 of the Act. It is from this point of view that we should under-stand the observations made in Ningappa Rangappa v. Munsiff, Gokak. (3) of S. 13 of the Act. It is from this point of view that we should under-stand the observations made in Ningappa Rangappa v. Munsiff, Gokak. The Petitioner's counsel invited our attention to the observation to the following effect in the said decision ;"clause (B) of S. 13 (3) of the Act provides that in a case in which the selection is not challenged under clause (A) to that subsection, the Munsiff after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each of the candidates, should declare the candidate who has secured the largest number of votes as having been duly elected. " ( 5 ) ANOTHER passage in the same decision on which reliance placed, is as follows:"the argument maintained by Sri Mariappa that clause (B) of sub-sec. (3) had no application is unacceptable. It is true that clause (B) does not apply to cases where clause (A) applies, which means that if a ground on which the election is challenged does not fall within the enumeration made in clause (A), then clause (B) becomes applicable. " ( 6 ) IN order to reconcile these observations with the provisions of law as discussed above, we have to understand observation as referring to the election petition successfully challenging the result of the election under clause (A), in which event, the operation of clause (B) becomes unnecessary. In the reported case, when the question whether the Munsiff should embark upon a scrutiny and computation of votes arose for consideration, the election petitioner appears to have confined the election petition to the grounds covered by clause (B) only. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be taken as laying down the proposition that in no case where the grounds urged in the election petition come within the categories of grounds enumerated in clause (A), clause (B) will be applicable. Therefore, the contention urged before us by the petition fails in the result, this writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, we direct each party to bear his own costs. --- *** --- .