JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - Bishnu Dutt, respondent No. 1 was a contestant to the office of Pramukh of Block, Shukul Bazar, Tehsil Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur. On 20-5-1983 he was declared elected to the office of Pramukh by the Returning Officer. The election of respondent No. 1 was challenged by Baijnath Pandey by means of an election position under Section 7, U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam No. 33 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 35 of the U. P. Kshettra Sami ties (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election disputes) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A perusal of the record indicates that the election of respondent No. 1 was challenged on various grounds but during the course of trial of the election petition and during the course of arguments before this court the challenge was confined only to five votes. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of counting Returning Officer did not reject three ballot papers which contained marks by which the voters could be identified afterwards and which were cast in favour of respondent No. 1. It is further contended that the ballot papers issued to Smt. Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad ought to have been rejected because they were accompanied by respondent No. 1 and Anil Kumar, sisters son of respondent No. 1 to the polling booth. The Returning Officer counted the above votes in favour of respondent No. 1 as such the declaration of result in favour of respondent No. 1 is bad. 2. Respondent No. 1 Bishnu Dutt contested the election petition and filed a written statement. He admitted that respondent No. 1 and Anil Kumar, his sisters son, helped Smt. Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad in casting their votes. It was pleaded that secrecy was maintained. It was further pleaded that there was no mistake in counting and no invalid vote was counted in favour of respondent No. 1. It was further denied that there was any previous arrangement with the voters and respondent No. 1 in regard to identification of votes. It was pleaded that secrecy was maintained. It was further pleaded that there was no mistake in counting and no invalid vote was counted in favour of respondent No. 1. It was further denied that there was any previous arrangement with the voters and respondent No. 1 in regard to identification of votes. On the above pleadings the two issues which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal were framed as follows : "(1) Whether three ballot-papers ought to have been rejected being invalid on the ground that voters concerned had made marks on the respective ballot papers by previous arrangement with the respondent No. 1 by which the voters could be identified as alleged in paras 3 and 4 of the election petition ? (2) Whether the votes cast by Smt. Ram Dulari and Sri Ayodhya Prasad ought to have been treated and rejected as alleged in Para 5 of the election petition ?" 3. 1st Additional District Judge, Sultanpur as Election Tribunal dismissed the petition of the appellant by order dated 11-1-1980. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed in this court. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal indicates that he has recorded a finding that there was no evidence to substantiate the pleading that there was any previous arrangement in between respondent No. 1 Bishnu Dutt and voters regarding putting of any marks on ballot-papers by voters. It was further observed by the Tribunal that since there was no written objection of the appellant at the time of counting and since the Returning Officer has not been examined in the case, it cannot be said that the ballot-papers contained marks on them at the time of counting. The Tribunal also held that votes of Smt. Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad were valid as no objection to that effect was raised at the time of counting and further there was no merit in the contention of the appellant that the acceptance of their votes was contrary to Rule 24 of the rules as amended by Rules of 1983. After recording these findings the election petition was decided. 4. For the purpose of adjudicating upon the controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the pleadings of the parties in respect of the pleas raised by the appellant in the election petition. After recording these findings the election petition was decided. 4. For the purpose of adjudicating upon the controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the pleadings of the parties in respect of the pleas raised by the appellant in the election petition. In this respect paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the election petition are reproduced below "3. That the learned Returning Officer ought to have rejected atleast 3 ballot-papers that were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1 Sri Bishnu Dutt which contained marks by which the voter could be identified afterwards. 4. That marks like these tick (1) Z and other were made by the voters concerned by previous arrangement with the respondent No. 1 so as to indicate the voters themselves and to assure the candidate concerned. These ballot-papers ought to have been rejected as invalid. 5. That there was yet another ballot paper which was issued to Smt. Ram Dulari that ought to have been rejected on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Sri Bishnu Dutta the candidate himself accompanied Smt. Ram Dulari into the polling booth and cast the vote on her behalf presumably in his own favour and the secrecy was not maintained likewise the ballot-paper of Ayodhya Prasad also ought to have been rejected who was accompanied by Anil Kumar convasser sisters son of Sri Bishnu Dutt. 6. That the learned Returning Officer erred in law in not paying any heed in the objection raised atleast regarding the above 4 ballot-papers in question at the time of counting and in refusing to show and scrutinise all such invalid ballot-papers counted in favour of the respondent No. 1." 5. The relevant paragraphs in the written statement of respondent No. 1 are paragraphs 5, 10 and 11. The said paragraphs are reproduced below "5. The relevant paragraphs in the written statement of respondent No. 1 are paragraphs 5, 10 and 11. The said paragraphs are reproduced below "5. Only this much is admitted that Smt. Anarkali alias Ram Dulari was accompanied by the respondent No. 1 on her request on whom she had full confidence upto the polling booth and at her instance helped her in casting the vote, to whom she wanted and maintained the secrecy of voting and only this much is also admitted that Sri Ayodhya Prasad was also accompanied by Anil Kumar, the sisters son of O. P. No. 1 at the request of Sri Ayodhya Prasad on whom the voters had full confidence and he helped him in casting his vote at the instance of Ayodhya Prasad to whom he wanted and maintained the secrecy of voting. Rest of the contents are denied. Additional pleas may kindly be perused. 10 That Smt. Anarkali alias Ram Dulari being illiterate was unable to record the preference on the ballot-paper nor she could read the same and as such she wanted the help of O. P. No. 1 in this regard on whom she had lull confidence who accordingly accompanied the aforesaid lady upto the polling booth and at her instance helped her in casting her vote to whom she wanted and in doing so he maintained the secrecy of voting as required by law and as such the aforesaid vote of Anarkali alias Smt. Ram Dulari is valid and genuine. 11. That Sri Ayodhya Prasad is also illiterate and as such was not in a position to record the preference on the ballot-paper nor he could read it and as such he wanted the help of Sri Anil Kumar on whom he had full confidence, who accordingly accompanied her upto the polling both and at his instance helped him in casting his vote to whom he wanted and in doing so maintained the secrecy of voting as required by law and as such the aforesaid vote of Shri Ayodhya Prasad is valid and genuine." 6. Before proceeding to decide whether the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal are correct or not, it would be appropriate to refer to certain decisions which deal with basic principles relating to an election dispute. Before proceeding to decide whether the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal are correct or not, it would be appropriate to refer to certain decisions which deal with basic principles relating to an election dispute. In this respect the first case that deserves to be mentioned in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmad and others, (1974) 2 SCC 660 , Krishna Iyer, J., at page 666 observed as follows : - "An election once held is not to be treated in a light hearted matter and defeated candidates or disgruntled cietors should not get away with it by filing election petitions on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, thereby introducing a serious element of uncertainty in the verdict already rendered by the electorate. An election is a politically sacred public act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. Courts naturally must respect this public expression secretly written and show extreme reluctance to set aside or declare void an election which has already been held unless clear and cogent testimony compelling the court to uphold the corrupt practise alleged against the returned candidate is adduced. Indeed election petitions where corrupt practises are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of quasi-criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. The burden is therefore heavy on him who assails an election which has been concluded." 7. In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna and others. AIR 19 8 SC 929 the Supreme Court observed that in election disputes the petitioner has to succeed on the strength of his own and not because of the weakness of the successful candidate The allegations made in the election petition may have to be established by reliable evidence. While elaborating this aspect Hidayatullah, J. observed as follows in the aforementioned decision : - "An election is something which cannot be readily set aside. There must be proof and convincing proof that a person is not properly chosen to fill a particular seat. Mere suspicion or surmise is not sufficient after the Returning Officer accepts a candidature and the candidate is chosen in the election. Once a community has gone to the polls and the voters have exercised their franchise it is necessary for an election petitioner to show that the candidate is not entitled to the seat. Mere suspicion or surmise is not sufficient after the Returning Officer accepts a candidature and the candidate is chosen in the election. Once a community has gone to the polls and the voters have exercised their franchise it is necessary for an election petitioner to show that the candidate is not entitled to the seat. In other words, the burden originally lies on the election petitioner and he cannot succeed unless he discharges that burden." 8. The evidence led by the parties in the case has to be examined in the light of the observations made by Supreme Court in the above mentioned case. In order to substantiate his pleas the appellant examined himself as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 Abhai Dutt. Respondent No. 1 examined himself to meet the case set-up in election petition. P.W. 1 Baijnath Pandey has stated before the Election Tribunal that at the time of counting he was present. He stated that on 3-4 ballot-papers there were marks which were cast in favour of respondent No. 1 Bishnu Dutt and the marks were made to identify that he has voted for a particular candidate. P. W. 1 states that he raided objection at that time but the Returning Officer said that he is deciding the objections right now and that P. W. 1 may take such steps in that respect later on. It has also been stated by Baijnath Pandey that marks made on the ballot papers were at the instance of Bishnu Dutt. The witness further stated that Bishnu Dutt had asked the voters to make sign so that he may be able to identify that the voters in question have voted for him. In the cross-examination the witness has admitted that in his presence Bishnu Dutt did not ask any of the voters to make signs on the ballot papers. He admitted that he did not file before the Returning Officer any written objection about the illegality of the votes. In the cross-examination, later on, Baijnath Pandey stated that although he had given a written objection but the same was not taken by the Returning Officer. The other witness produced on behalf of the appellant is Abhai Dutt, P. W. 2. He has stated that he is not a voter in the block in which election was taking place but he was there to see it. The other witness produced on behalf of the appellant is Abhai Dutt, P. W. 2. He has stated that he is not a voter in the block in which election was taking place but he was there to see it. According to the said witness there were four groups sitting, one consisted of Bishnu Dutt, the second was of Baijnath Pandey, third was of Ambika Prasad Pandey and the fourth one was of Jamal Ahmad. He stated that he went to all the groups but at the group of Bishnu Dutt he sat down and he heard Bishnu Dutt saying to his voters that he would like to be assured that they had voted for him and that voters should make a definite sign on the ballot-papers to indicate that they voted for him. The witness further states that he repeated to Baijnath Pandey the conversation that had taken place. In the cross-examination the witness stated that there was no conversation between him Bishnu Dutt in the group in which Bishnu Dutt was sitting. From a perusal of the statements of these two witnesses, it appears that Baijnath Pandey did not file written objections before the Returning Officer. The other thing that appears is that the evidence led by P. W. and supported by P.W. 2 is unreliable and does not establish that there was previous arrangement between voters and Bishnu Dutt that some signs should be put on the ballot papers in order to enable Bishnu Dutt to satisfy him that the voters have voted for him. A perusal of the record also indicates that at the lime of counting Baijnath Pandey was present. He stated that he saw signs but did not file any written objection. In regard to the arrangement for making signs on ballot-papers the evidence led by P. W. 1 is absolutely unreliable. The evidence of P.W. 1 is evidence of an interested person and unless it is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence, it is not possible to place any reliance upon it. In support of his version P. W. 1 examined P. W. 2 Abhai Dutt. He had admitted that he is not a voter in the block m which the election was taking place and he was simply going about from one group to other to see the election. In support of his version P. W. 1 examined P. W. 2 Abhai Dutt. He had admitted that he is not a voter in the block m which the election was taking place and he was simply going about from one group to other to see the election. He has repeated the version deposed to by P. W. 1 but his evidence does not inspire confidence and docs not appear to be a natural witness about the alleged conversation. Moreover, the trial court had occasion to watch the demeanour of the witness and if he has chosen not to place reliance upon his evidence then the appellate court would be reluctant to interfere with finding of fact which depends largely upon the way in which the witness conducted himself in the witness-box. 9. On the other hand D. W. 1 Bishnu Dutt has examined himself. He has stated that on the date of the election he did not say to any of the voters that they should make any sign on the ballot-papers to indicate that they have voted for him. He also stated that at the time of counting Baijnath Pandey, the election petitioner did not file any objection oral or written in regard to the making of signs on the ballot-papers. He stated that at the time of counting he was also present and was examining the ballot papers. He also states that he saw the ballot-papers cast in his favour. He definitely states that apart from the serial number there was no other mark on the ballot-papers. He further states that although Baijnath Pandey was present at the time of counting he did not raise any objection to the votes. After having examined the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 along with D.V. J, the election Tribunal has come to a finding that the story deposed to by Baijnath Pandey regarding making of signs is unworthy and unreliable. It is unlikely that if any defect was noticed on the ballot-papers the election petitioner would not have filed a written objection. An election of this nature is liable to be challenged by an election petition and is a person really felt aggrieved by any illegality in the casting of votes, the aggrieved party would have filed written objection so that the same may be raised and enquired into by Election Tribunal. An election of this nature is liable to be challenged by an election petition and is a person really felt aggrieved by any illegality in the casting of votes, the aggrieved party would have filed written objection so that the same may be raised and enquired into by Election Tribunal. Moreover, at the time of counting the election petitioner and respondent No. 1 were present. Both are unanimous in saying that no objection was filed by Baijnath Pandey. Respondent No. 1 categorically states that there was no sign on the ballot-papers apart from the serial number. The version deposed to by the election petitioner that there were marks on the ballot-papers in pursuance of a talk between him and the voter does not find support from liable documentary or oral evidence, The Election Tribunal has correctly assessed the evidentiary value of oral evidence led by both the parties and see no reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the Election Tribunal that the ballot-papers which were cast in favour of the appellant before some signs which signs were made in pursuance of a talk between respondent No. 1 and the voters referred to in the evidence At any rate, the election petitioner has failed to establish by reliable evidence that there was previous arrangement between respondent No. 1 and the voters regarding putting of marks on the ballot papers. have examined the line of reasoning adopted by the Selection Tribunal and find myself in agreement with his finding on issue No. 1. In Km. Shradha Dm v. Krishna Chandra Pant and others, AIR 1982 3C 1569, the Supreme Court had to deal with a case in which there was an allegation that identification marks were put on the ballot paper. Mr. Justice Desai dealing with this aspect at page 1578 observed as follows : - "..........that the mark or writing which would invalidate the ballot-paper must be such as to unerringly point in the direction of identity of the voter. In the absence of such suggested mark or writing the ballot-paper cannot be rejected merely because there is some mark or writing on the ground that by the mark or writing the voter may be identified." Later on the learned Judge further observed as follows : " And it must be member that every mark or writing does not result in invalidation of the vote. The mark or identification should be such as to unerringly reveal by identity of the voter and the evidence of prior arrangement connection the mark must be made available." 10. In the light of observations made by Desai, J., above, it has to be noticed that in the first instance the petitioner has failed to establish that there was any arrangement whereby marks were put on the ballot-papers so as to be identified. have already discussed the evidence of the parties and have come to a finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that there was previous arrangement about the making of marks so that the voters may be identified. A perusal of the evidence seems to reveal that apart from serial numbers there were no other marks. In my opinion, the evidence led by the petitioner does not conform to the standard laid down by Desai, J. in K. M. Shradha Devi v Krishna Chandra Pant and others (supra). 11. The next contention urged on behalf of the election petitioner is that the votes cast by Smt. Ram Dulari and Sri Ayodhya Prasad ought to have been rejected as alleged in paragraph 5 of the election petition. The averments contained in paragraph 5 is as follows : - "5. That there was yet another ballot paper which was issued to Smt. Ram Dulari that ought to have been rejected on the ground that the respondent No. 1 Shri Bishnu Dutta the candidate himself accompanied Smt. Ram Duiati into the polling booth and cast the vote on her behalf presumably in his own favour and the secrecy was not maintained likewise the ballot paper of Ajodhya Prasad also ought to have been rejected who was accompanied by Anil Kumar canvasser sisters son of Sri Bishnu Dutt." It is admitted case of the parties that the controversy raised above can be decided by reference to Rule 24(6) of the Rules which is quoted below : - "21. Manner of recording voting. - (I) Every member shall have as many preferences as there are candidates but no ballot paper shall be considered invalid solely on the ground that all such preferences are not marked. (2) .................. (3) .................. (4) .................. (5) ................. Manner of recording voting. - (I) Every member shall have as many preferences as there are candidates but no ballot paper shall be considered invalid solely on the ground that all such preferences are not marked. (2) .................. (3) .................. (4) .................. (5) ................. (6) If an elector is unable to read the ballot paper or to record his vote thereon by reason of illiteracy blindness/or other infirmity, the Returning Officer shall, on being satisfied about such illiteracy, blindness or infirmity permit the elector to take with him a companion of not less than 21 years of age who is able to read the ballot paper and record the vote thereon on behalf of, and in accordance with, the wishes of the elector and if necessary, to fold the ballot paper so as to cancel the vote and insert it into the ballot box i Provided that no person shall be permitted to act as companion of more than one elector at any polling station on the same day : Provided further that before any person is permitted to act as the companion of an elector on any day under this rule, the person shall be required to declare that he will keep secret the vote recorded by him on behalf of the elector and that he has not already acted as the companion of any other elector at any polling station on that day. The Returning Officer shall keep a record in Form 7-A of all the cases under this sub-rule." 12. From a perusal of the order passed by the Election Tribunal, it appears that there were 8 such voters who were allowed to cast their votes with the help of companions. A perusal of the rule quoted above indicates that it has provided for adequate safeguard to maintain secrecy of votes. The rule further indicates that a person referred to in the rule may vote along with a companion and be may take with him a companion who happens to be a contesting candidate. The rule provides that an elector may take a companion, not less than 21 years of age and who is able to read the ballot paper and record the vote thereon in accordance with the wishes of the elector. The rule provides that an elector may take a companion, not less than 21 years of age and who is able to read the ballot paper and record the vote thereon in accordance with the wishes of the elector. Such a person is permitted to assist an illiterate, blind or an infirm person, in paragraph 5 and 6 of the election petition it has been stated that the candidate himself accompanied Smt. Ram Dulari into polling booth to cast vote on her behalf in his favour and ballot paper of Ayodhya Prasad had to be rejected on the ground that the companion Anil Kumar is sisters son of Bishnu Dutt In the first instance no written objection was filed before the Returning Officer at the time of counting on the ground that these two votes are invalid. 13. A perusal of the record indicates that the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the election petition are not supported by any oral evidence. Neither P. W. 1 Baijnath Pandey nor P. W. 2 Abhai Dutt say anything about the facts stated in paragraph 5 of the election petition. Averments contained in paragraph 5 of the election petition has been replied to by Bishnu Dutt in paragraph 5 of the written statement. The reply is as follows "Only this much is admitted that Smt. Anarkali alias Ram Dulari was accompanied by the respondent No. 2 on her request in whom she had full confidence upto the polling booth and at her instance helped her in casting the vote, to whom she wanted and maintained the secrecy of voting and only this much is also admitted that Sri Ayodhya Prasad was also accompanied by Anil Kumar, the sisters son of O. P. No. 1 at the request of Sri Ayodhya Prasad on whom the voters had full confidence and he helped him in casting his vote at the instance of Ayodhya Prasad to whom he wanted and maintained the secrecy of voting. Rest of the contents are denied. Additional pleas may kindly be perused." In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Additional pleas respondent No.l has stated as follows "10. Rest of the contents are denied. Additional pleas may kindly be perused." In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Additional pleas respondent No.l has stated as follows "10. That Smt. Ram Dulari alias Anarkali being illiterate was unable to record the preferences on the ballot paper nor she could read the same and as such she wanted the help of O. P. No. 1 in this regard on whom she had full confidence who accordingly accompanied the aforesaid lady upto the polling booth and at her instance helped her in casting her vote to whom she wanted and in doing so he maintained the secrecy of voting as required by law and as such the aforesaid vote of Smt. Ram Dulari alias Anarkali is valid and genuine. 11. That Sri Ayodhya Prasad is also illiterate and as such was not in a position to record the preference on the ballot paper nor he could read it and as such he wanted the help of Sri Anil Kumar on whom he had full confidence, who accordingly accompanied her upto the polling booth and at his instance helped him in casting his vole to whom he wanted and in doing so maintained the secrecy of voting as required by law and as such the aforesaid vote of Sri Ayodhya Prasad is valid and genuine." 14. It thus appears that Bishnu Dutt respondent No. 1 admits that he accompanied Smt. Ram Dulari and his sisters son Anil Kumar accompanied Sri Ayodhya Prasad to cast the vote. In view of the fact that the assistance render- ed by respondent No. 1 and Anil Kumar is admitted, the question arises whether the votes cast in the manner indicated above by Smt. Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad are illegal or not. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since respondent No. 1 and his sisters son have acted as companion of Smt. Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad, secrecy of ballot paper has not been maintained and, therefore, these two votes should be eliminated from the votes counted in favour of respondent No. 1 Rule 24(6) provides that if Returning Officer is satisfied about illiteracy, blindness or other infirmity of a voter he may permit the elector to take with him a companion of not less than 21 years. The rule does not provide that the contesting candidate cannot be a companion and there is no prohibition in this respect. The choice has been left to the elector to choose a companion and if he chooses a person who happens to be a candidate himself, the rule will not be violated merely because the companion happens to be a candidate. The requirements of a companion have been indicated in Rule 24(6) of the rules and there is nothing on record to indicate that the companion in the case of Smt. Ram Dulari and in the case ox Ayodhya Prasad did not fulfil any of the qualification required of them. All that the rule requires is that the secrecy should be maintained. If the elector chooses to take with him a companion who is contesting candidate, it cannot be said that the Returning Officer has committed any illegality in permitting the candidate to be a companion of an infirm person. It may be that the infirm person may have decided to vote for a particular candidate and in order to ensure that his vote is cast in favour of the person to whom he wishes to vote and wants to be sure of it then there is nothing wrong if the elector chooses the candidate in question as his companion. Similarly, the vote cast by Ayodhya Prasad with the assistance of his companion, namely, Anti Kumar, cannot be said to be illegal as there is no bar in the rule for Anil Kumar being a companion of an infirm elector. It may also be noted that no such objection was raised before the Returning Officer and Baijnath Pandey P. W. 1 has not stated anything about the invalidity of these two votes when he has examined himself before the Election Tribunal. 15. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that one of the principles of democratic form of Government is that the election should be fair and utmost secrecy be maintained about votes. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, this principle has been violated as in the nature of things secrecy in casting of votes cannot be maintained when a contesting candidate or his relation is permitted to act as a companion in casting the vote. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, this principle has been violated as in the nature of things secrecy in casting of votes cannot be maintained when a contesting candidate or his relation is permitted to act as a companion in casting the vote. After having examined the arguments so advanced, find that there is no merit in the contention. The rules lay down procedure for maintaining secrecy of votes. All that is necessary to maintain secrecy of votes is that the vote cast should not be published so that others may know before hand in whose favour the elector has cast the vote. The rule requires that the companion of an elector shall be required to declare before he assists an infirm that he will keep secret the vote recorded by him on behalf of the elector and that he has not already acted as the companion of any other elector and any polling station on that day. In the instant case the two electors, namely, Ram Dulari and Ayodhya Prasad chose respondent No. 1 and Anil Kumar respectively as their companions. There is nothing on record to indicates that the companions have in any manner disclosed the name of the person in whose favour the vote was cast and that the companions have not acted as companion of any other elector at any polling station. The rule prescribes only this much of secrecy. If the extent of secrecy is indicated in the rule itself then it is not possible to travel outside the rules to ascertain whether secrecy of votes has been violated. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the companion Chosen by the electors was one who could not be chosen. It is not the case of the appellant that the companions in any manner while acting as companions, violated the provisions of Rule 24(6) of the rules. Once these two things are established, there is no reason on the basis of which it can be said that the votes cast by Fort. Ram Dulari and Ayodha Prasad were illegal. It is not the case of the appellant that the companions in any manner while acting as companions, violated the provisions of Rule 24(6) of the rules. Once these two things are established, there is no reason on the basis of which it can be said that the votes cast by Fort. Ram Dulari and Ayodha Prasad were illegal. It is open to the electors to vote for any one and if they chose to vote for a particular candidate and chose the candidate as the companion who in other respects is a companion within the meaning of the rules, it cannot be said that the votes cast by such electors through such a companion is invalid or illegal. 16. For the reasons stated above, 1 find that the election of respondent No. 1 to the office of Pramukh does not suffer from any infirmity. The order passed by the Tribunal is correct and does not call for interference. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with cost.