T. N. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) A torn and tattered petition it is, so it is contended by respondent's counsel. Because, for the battered cause relief has to be sought in popular mandate and not in legal battle. That counsel submits, is the crux of the matter. ( 2 ) THE result of petitioner's election to a Mandi Samiti has been found materially affected by the Election Tribunal as a result of a ballot paper being "received" (counted) in favour of the petitioner. On that ground petitioner's election has been set aside. It is contended, therefore, that there would be no complaint to be heard by us on the writ side. ( 3 ) INDEED, another forceful contention pressed at the threshold by Shri Lahoti is that necessary parties not being before the Court today the petition is not maintainable and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In this connection the fact which is not denied is that respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who would now be the candidates in the re-election were given up and they were not noticed on the prayer made by the petitioner. Both contention pressed by Shri Lahoti are supported by Shri J. S. L. Sinha and Shri Arvind Dudawat, appearing for the Mandi Samiti and State respectively. ( 4 ) DESPITE the preliminary objection, which ought to prevail, we have looked into petitioner's grievance on merit. In so far as the relevant rules are concerned we have no doubt that there is no violation of R. 44 of the M. P. Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharsadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974. The Election Tribunal, namely, the Deputy Collector in this case, is authorised to declare void any election on any ground set out in sub-r. (2) and in the instant case the ground is covered by Cl. (d), sub-clause (iii) of sub-r. (2 ). There is a clear finding by the Election Tribunal that the ballot No. 7359 was counted illegally in favour of the respondent in the election petition and the result of his election was accordingly materially affected. Taking that view the election of the said respondent before him was set aside. (d), sub-clause (iii) of sub-r. (2 ). There is a clear finding by the Election Tribunal that the ballot No. 7359 was counted illegally in favour of the respondent in the election petition and the result of his election was accordingly materially affected. Taking that view the election of the said respondent before him was set aside. ( 5 ) MAIN contention of Shri N. K. Jain, counsel appearing for the petitioner, who figured as the respondent before the Election Tribunal, is that there was serious challenge to the validity of the said ballot paper and there ought to have been inquiry into that. In other words, the respondents ought to have been given by the Election Tribunal opportunity to examine a Handwriting Expert to do a special thing, namely, to identity whether on the ballot paper there was impressed any seal or stamp indicating exercise of franchise. We fail to understand how this contention could at all be pressed before us or the Election Tribunal. Because, the Handwriting Expert would not have bee allowed to give his opinion on the question of seal or stamp. It was a case of simple examination of the ballot paper in question with naked eyes to see whether any seal or stamp was impressed thereon and that exercise could have been validly undertaken only by the Election Tribunal. Indeed, there would have been room for some grievance if that had not been done by the Election Tribunal and the Tribunal, instead of discharging its duty, had accepted an "opinion" to influence him. 5-A. On perusal of the order passed on petitioner's application by the Election Tribunal, on 5-5-1987, we are satisfied that the right thing was done by the Election Tribunal having looked itself at the ballot-paper and taken the view that the ballot in question was a valid "vote" as it showed the seal or stamp being impressed on it. Indeed, the only question which had to be decided was whether it ought to be counted in favour of the petitioner by the Counting Officer which was challenged by the respondent. He took the view on perusal of the ballot-paper and on examination of the seal that the franchise exercised in respect thereto favoured the Election Petitioner and not the respondent. He took the view on perusal of the ballot-paper and on examination of the seal that the franchise exercised in respect thereto favoured the Election Petitioner and not the respondent. ( 6 ) FACED with this situation Shri N. K. Jain has still urged that we look at R. 38 and hold that the Election Tribunal failed in its duty in not acting thereunder inasmuch as on the concerned ballot being counted in favour of the election-petitioner there was equality of votes. To this contention also there is a short answer that R. 38 does not apply to the Election Tribunal and at the stage of counting only Rule 38 can be invoked. An Election Tribunal has to act within the parameters of R. 44 and not beyond that. It can only declare void any election on any of the "grounds" enumerated in sub-r. (2) as is clearly reflected in the ambit of its jurisdiction defined in sub-r. (1 ). ( 7 ) FOR the several foregoing reasons we have no hesitation to hold that the petition is wholly meritless and we do not see any reason to interfere with any of the two impugned orders passed by S. D. O. on 6-6-1987 and by the Collector on the same date confirming the order of the S. D. O. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .