CHANDRAKANTHARUJ, J. ( 1 ) PRAYER in the writ petition is for quashing the declaration made by the 1st respondent prescribed Officer declaring the 3rd respondent - N. Kullegouda as Pradhan of the Viltalapura mandal Panchayat, Mandya District. ( 2 ) THE facts themselves are not in dispute as evidenced by Annexure-D. The first respondent Prescribed Officer conducted election to the post of Pradhan and Upapradhan of the Vittalapura Mandal panchayat on 31-7-1987 at 11 A. M. Respondent no. 3 was one of the persons nominated, while the petitioner also was nominated as a candidate for the office of pradhan. On account of the participation in the voting by the nominated members, San- jeevaiah and another, the votes secured by the two contesting candidates became equal as a result of which a coin was tossed to decide as to who was the successful candidate to hold the Office of Pradhan and a declaration was made in accordance therewith. The petitioner contends that the participation of nominated was illegal and ab initio void which therefore did not call for deciding the election by lot as prescribed by the Rules and in any event, tossing of the coin is not the mode by which a decisio should be taken when there is a tie. It is convenient to take up the second contention first. It does not take any judicial interpretation of the relevant rules to show that decision by lot cannot be equated with tossing a coin. Taking decision by lot is easily understood which is to mean to draw lots. In view of the tie the names of the candidates must be written on identical slips of paper folded the same way and put in a box or sack, and after shaking the box or sack the officer should pick one of the slips. The name which is so drawn out will be declared as the successful candidate. That procedure having not been followed in the instant case it must be declared to be illegal. ( 3 ) THIS Court in number of other cases has held that nomination of members by the adhyaksha of the Parishad to be void and their participation at the election becomes illegal and counting of their votes also becomes illegal and impermissible. That procedure having not been followed in the instant case it must be declared to be illegal. ( 3 ) THIS Court in number of other cases has held that nomination of members by the adhyaksha of the Parishad to be void and their participation at the election becomes illegal and counting of their votes also becomes illegal and impermissible. In the result, on the facts of this case there was no need for a tie at all and as such the petitioner who was the other contesting candidate should be held to have secured more votes in his favour for the office of the Pradhan. In that event the present declaration must be set aside and it is so set aside. ( 4 ) A direction will issue now to the 1st respondent - Prescribed Officer to make a fresh declaration in the light of the observations made above. Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Zilla Parishad which was directed to be made a party, by an order of the Court is not served: I do not think that should in any way affect the order passed. Zilla Parishad was made a party unnecessarily, as it was already a party in another writ petition by the same petitioner wherein the question of nomination had been challenged and it has been allowed by me today. --- *** --- .