Judgment :- The petitioner â€“ Palode Ravi challenges the declaration of result made on 13.5.2001 to the effect that the first respondent â€“ Mangode Radhakrishnan had won the election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No.132 Nedumangad Constituency. 2. The margin of success was merely by 156 votes in so far as the petitioner, who was the United Democratic Front (U.D.F.) candidate, secured 62114 votes as against 62270 votes secured by the first respondent, who was the Left Democratic Front (L.D.F.) candidate. In the nature of the case it is unnecessary to mention about the votes secured by respondents 2 to 4, who were the other candidates. 3. The result of the election is challenged invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner alleges that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the first respondent, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of votes tendered by ineligible persons like minors and by improper refusal and rejection of votes tendered by eligible votes whose names were either omitted or deleted from the roll after they had been issued Photo Identity Cards. There is also an allegation that as against the constitutional provisions votes of minors were accepted. It is the case of the petitioner that if the votes of ineligible voters and minors are excluded and the improperly rejected votes are taken into account, it could be seen that the petitioner had won the election. The prayer, therefore, is to declare the election of the first respondent as void and to set it aside and to declare the petitioner as the duly elected candidate from No.132 Nedumangad Constituency to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in the election of May 2001. 4. Material facts: In the Election Petition the petitioner contended that on the polling date of 10.5.2001, 202 voters, whose names and other details are mentioned in Annexure F in the E.P. (Ext.P6) and who had with them the photo identity cards issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, were denied voting right by the Officers in charge of various polling stations stating that their names had been struck off from the electoral roll concerned and that such striking off took place â€œa few days before the pollingâ€�. The petitioner has a case that these voters were actually supporters of the U.D.F., and had they been permitted to vote in the election, the votes would have gone in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner further contended that 109 voters mentioned in Ext.P7 (G schedule) also were denied the right to vote when they turned up in the respective polling stations on the ground that their names had not been included in the electoral roll though these voters also had been issued photo identity cards, which would undoubtedly show that they were eligible voters. 6. The third contention of the petitioner is that those voters whose details are given in paragraph 5 of the E.P. were denied voting right when they turned up at the polling stations concerned ready to vote on the ground that red line had been drawn against their names. 7. As regards the 31 voters whose details are given in Ext.P8 (Annexure H of the EP) the petitioner contends that their names had been included in more than one polling station of different Constituencies, including Nedumangad Assembly Constituency and that they had voted utilizing the enlistment in the polling stations concerned. The contention is that the votes recorded by these 31 persons have to be ignored or devalidated. 8. As regards the voter by name Sivarajan mentioned in paragraph 7 of the E.P., the contention is that he was no more on the date of election; but someone impersonated and voted in his name. The request is that the said vote be deducted from the eligible votes. 9. As regards the 63 voters mentioned in Ext.P9 (Annexure I of the EP), the allegation is that Sl.No.11 voted thrice in the same Assembly Constituency on 10.5.2001, whereas the remaining 62 persons made double voting; again within the same Assembly Constituency and that all these votes are liable to be treated as void. 10. With regard to the 33 voters in Ext.P10 (annexure J in the EP) it is contended that they were all minors as on the qualifying date viz. 1st January 2001 and that they were illegally registered as voters. It is therefore prayed that votes of these 33 persons should be reduced from the total number of valid votes. 11. 10. With regard to the 33 voters in Ext.P10 (annexure J in the EP) it is contended that they were all minors as on the qualifying date viz. 1st January 2001 and that they were illegally registered as voters. It is therefore prayed that votes of these 33 persons should be reduced from the total number of valid votes. 11. One of the technical contentions raised by the petitioner is that there was no valid electoral roll at all available in the Constituency for use at the time of polling in so far as none of the rolls was authenticated or signed by competent official. 12. Pursuant to C.M.P.No.1960 of 2001 the petitioner got the election petition amended including para 11(a) contending that electronic voting machine (EVM) only takes the place of the ballot paper and ballot box and as such examination of its contents after necessary decoding could be done to ascertain the person in whose favour the ineligible votes had gone. 13. On 17.6.2002 the petitioner filed C.M.P. 2268 of seeking one more amendment of the E.P. It was allowed as per order dt. 26.6.2002. The purport was to amplify the pleadings with regard to voters mentioned in Annexure G. 14. The first respondent filed additional written statements answering the contentions in both these amendment applications. 15. On 7.8.2001 the first respondent filed C.M.P.No.2800 of 2001 seeking review of the order allowing first among the two above mentioned amendment applications on the ground that the first respondent in the election petition was not heard at the time when the amendment was allowed. The petition was dismissed on 8.8.2001 holding that the said amendment was allowed before summons was ordered to the first respondent and that it would be open to the first respondent in the election petition to file additional written statement answering para 11(a) which alone was incorporated through that amendment. 16. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for trial: 1. Whether the EP is defective for want of proper verification? 2. Whether the 31 voters named in Annexure H or any of them voted twice in the polling taken on 10.5.2001? 3. Whether the 63 voters mentioned in Annexure I (excluding Sl.No.11) or any of them have voted twice in one and the same Constituency? 4. Whether voter with Sl.No.11 mentioned in Annexure I voted thrice as alleged? 5. 2. Whether the 31 voters named in Annexure H or any of them voted twice in the polling taken on 10.5.2001? 3. Whether the 63 voters mentioned in Annexure I (excluding Sl.No.11) or any of them have voted twice in one and the same Constituency? 4. Whether voter with Sl.No.11 mentioned in Annexure I voted thrice as alleged? 5. Whether the voter Shivarajan, voter with Sl.No.367 of Booth No.93 whose details are given in para 7 of the EP was actually dead as on 10.5.2001? 6. Whether anyone has voted in the name of the said Shivarajan through impersonation? 7. Whether the electoral roll used for the polling on 10.5.2001 in the Nedumangad Assembly Constituency was a duly authenticated roll and signed by the concerned officer? 8. What, if any, are the number of votes to be invalidated from among the votes credited to the 1st respondent? 9. What is the correct number of votes secured by the petitioner and the 1st respondent? 10. Whether the declaration regarding invalidity of election of the first respondent sought for by the petitioner can be allowed? 11. Whether the petitioner can be declared to have won in the election? 12. Reliefs and costs. Addl.13. Whether the denial of voting right to 202 votes mentioned in para 3 of the election petition (Annex.F) amounts to improper refusal to receive valid votes? 14. Whether the deletion of the names of the 202 voters mentioned in Annex.F a few days before the polling date was legal and proper? 15. Whether the denial of voting right to the voters in Annex.G (vide para 4 of the E.P.) amounts to refusal to receive valid votes? 16. Whether the denial of voting right to the six voters mentioned in para 5 of the E.P. on the ground that their names have been included in the deletion list amounts to improper refusal to receive valid votes? 17. Whether the acceptance of votes from 33 voters mentioned in Annex.J (alleged minors) amounts to improper reception of votes? 18. Whether the names of the 26 persons mentioned in Anenx.G and in para 4 of the E.P. were deleted from the final electoral roll and added in other polling stations by reason of alteration after the last date for filing nomination?â€� 17. 18. Whether the names of the 26 persons mentioned in Anenx.G and in para 4 of the E.P. were deleted from the final electoral roll and added in other polling stations by reason of alteration after the last date for filing nomination?â€� 17. C.M.P.No.2705 of 2001 was filed by the first respondent in the E.P. praying that paragraphs 2 to 9 in the E.P. might be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. and that consequently the E.P. itself might be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. After hearing the parties this Court passed order dt.5.9.2001 allowing the pleadings contained in paras 2 to 5 and 9 of the E.P. to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C. and holding that nevertheless, trial of the E.P. should continue because in the event of the petitioner succeeding to establish the averments in the unstruck off paras he would be entitled to succeed in so far as the magic number involved is only 156. 18. The petitioner took up the matter before the Apex Court and in Civil Appeal No.3436 of 2001 the Apex Court held vide order dt.7.5.2002 as follows: â€œHaving examined the pleadings of the Election Petition, we fail to understand as to which clause of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code will apply to the case in hand. We are of the considered opinion, the High Court arbitrarily struck off certain paragraphs of the pleadings without even coming to a conclusion as to whether they are scandalous or frivolous or vexatious which tend to prejudice or embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Election Tribunal and direct that the Election Petition be heard and disposed of forthwithâ€�. 19. The first respondent then filed C.M.P.No.3171 of 2001 taking up the contention that the petitioner failed to produce amended copies of the election petition; that what was served on him was only the unamended portion, which cannot be taken as a true copy of the election petition and that the E.P. has therefore to be dismissed. 19. The first respondent then filed C.M.P.No.3171 of 2001 taking up the contention that the petitioner failed to produce amended copies of the election petition; that what was served on him was only the unamended portion, which cannot be taken as a true copy of the election petition and that the E.P. has therefore to be dismissed. The said petition was dismissed on 11.9.2001 holding that the new ground and the prayer in the amendment petition were attached with the copy of the E.P. to be served on the respondents and that as such the directions of this Court contained in the order dt.27.6.2001 was fully met and that in the absence of any contention for the elected candidate that the new grounds and amendments were not received by him along with the copy of the E.P. there was no merit in the petition. 20. C.M.P.No.4495 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that in the nature of the evidence to be adduced and considering the necessity to examine the voters mentioned in the different schedules whose number would be around 500 and considering the distance between the seat of the High Court from the place of residence of these voters trial of the case might be held at Trivandrum, which is their native district. In the meantime the amendment to the C.P.C. providing for dispensation of Chief Examination and substituting the same by proof affidavit had also come into effect. After hearing the parties as also Shir.Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan as Amicus Curiae, with regard to the modalities to be adopted, it was ordered on 10.9.2002 that by virtue of the power available to the Court under Section 80A(3) of the Representation of the People Act, to have the trial, wholly or partly, at a place other than the seat of the High Court, collection of evidence of essential witnesses would be had at Camp sitting in Trivandrum and that in lieu of Chief Examination, proof affidavits would be insisted on. Accordingly the examination of the witnesses of the aforesaid type were held in Camp sittings. 21. During the trial 350 witnesses were examined for the petitioner; 9 witnesses were examined for the respondents and Exts.P1 to P12; R1 to R6, C1 to C27 series and X1 to X562 series were marked. 22. Accordingly the examination of the witnesses of the aforesaid type were held in Camp sittings. 21. During the trial 350 witnesses were examined for the petitioner; 9 witnesses were examined for the respondents and Exts.P1 to P12; R1 to R6, C1 to C27 series and X1 to X562 series were marked. 22. C.M.P.No.48 of 2003 was filed on 6.1.2003 seeking comparison of signatures of certain witnesses with their admitted signatures and with signatures recorded in Court unless Court was inclined to send them for examination by a handwriting expert. This petition was closed on 30.1.2003 after hearing the parties and observing that after the final hearing the parties and observing that after the final hearing and on preliminary examination of the relevant disputed signatures, if the Court felt a genuine doubt and found it necessary to make a reference to an expert with regard to the signatures in particular documents, it could be sent up to an expert at a later stage. 23. Obviously because specific evidence was not let in to prove the contention in para 7, Issues 5 and 6 which related to voting in the place of alleged dead voter by name Sivarajan, was not pressed by the petitionerâ€™s counsel during final hearing. Consequently Issues 5 and 6 do not arise for consideration at this stage. Likewise, Issue No.16 which relates to denial of voting right to the six voters mentioned in para 5 of the E.P. was also not pressed during hearing and hence Issue No.16 also does not deserve further consideration. Issues 13 to 15 and 18. 24. One of the important aspects that falls for consideration is the impact of the Apex Courtâ€™s judgment in Civil Appeal 3436 of 2002 setting aside the order of this Court passed in C.M.P.No.2705 of 2001 striking off paras 2 to 5 and 9 from the E.P. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent notwithstanding the continuance of the aforesaid paras in the E.P. in view of the above judgment in Civil Appeal 3436 of 2002, the petitioner has no right to adduce evidence based thereon since the law laid down by the Apex Court through judicial precedents is to the effect that unless specific pleadings are available in an Election Petition, no evidence could be let in notwithstanding the fact that any issue happened to be raised based on such inadmissible and vague pleadings. According to me the Apex Court in C.A. 3436/02 has only found that striking of pleadings allowed by the Court was not justified. There is no finding rendered by the Apex Court to the effect that the pleadings available were sufficient to justify interference with the declaration of result even if they were proved through evidence. The dictum in Azher Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1986 SC 1253) and Lakshmi Charan Sen & ors. V. A.K.M.Hassan uzzaman & ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1233) also have not been interfered with. 25. Rule 22 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provides for publication of the final electoral roll and for supplying true copies of such roll free of cost to every political party for which a symbol is exclusively reserved by the Election Commission. Rule 22(3) provides that the Electoral Registration Officer may, for convenience of all concerned, integrate, subject to any general or special directions issued by the Election Commission in this behalf, the list into the basic roll by incorporating inclusion of names, amendment, transposition or deletion of entries in the relevant parts of the basic roll itself in the relevant parts, but no change shall be made, in the process of such integration, in the name of any elector or in any particulars relating to any elector as given in the list of amendments. The election schedule, as prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer gave 23.4.2001 as the date for publication of the final electoral roll. It is well settled by Judicial precedents that in view of Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act the electoral roll becomes sacrosanct at the time at which time for presentation of nominations ends. As such, in the instant case, the final electoral roll assumed finality at 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 and the bar against inclusion or deletion of names in the roll applies only to the period after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001. 26. A there member Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to examine these aspects recently in Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh (2002) 1 SCC 160) and it is held in para 15 of the said judgment as follows: â€œA word about the pleadings. Section 83 of the Act mandates an election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Section 83 of the Act mandates an election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. The rules of pleadings enable a civil dispute being adjudicated upon by a fair trail and reaching a just decision. A civil trial, more so when it relates to an election dispute, where the fate not only of the parties arrayed before the court but also of the entire constituency is at a stake, the game has to be played with open cards and not like a game of chess or hide and seek. An election petition must set out all material facts wherefrom inferences vital to the success of the election petitioner and enabling the court to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner can be drawn subject to the averments being substantiated by cogent evidence. Concise and specific pleadings setting out all relevant materials facts, and then cogent affirmative evidence being adduced in support of such averments, are indispensable to the success of an election petition. An election petition, if allowed, results in avoiding an election and nullifying the success of a returned candidate. It is a serious remedy. Therefore, an election petition seeking relief on a ground under Section 100(1)(d) of the Act, must precisely allege all material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of the plea that the result of the election has been materially affected.â€� 27. Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & anr. v. Dattaji Radhobaji Megha & ors. (AIR 1995 SC 2284) and Samant N.Balakrishna v. George Fernandez & ors. (AIR 1969 SC 1201) provide that to meet the requirements in Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act the petitioner has to state the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Omission of even a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claims would become bad. Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur (AIR 1987 SC 2179) provides that pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different case during trial. 28. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by Lrs. & ors v. Harun Abdul Inamdar & ors. 28. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by Lrs. & ors v. Harun Abdul Inamdar & ors. (AIR 1996 SC 112) provides that no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigant party. Bhagat Singh & ors. v. Jaswant Sing (AIR 1966 SC 1861) provides that the mere fact that the issues framed involve consideration of a question will not be a substitute for definite pleadings required under Section 83. No amount of proof can also be accepted when there is want of corresponding pleadings. 29. Adequacy of pleadings in the present case may now be examined in the light of the above dicta. As already mentioned, the present election petition had undergone two amendments; one before summons was issued to the first respondent and the other after he had entered appearance. I shall approach the question with both the amendments treated as valid and kept in tact as part of the pleadings of the petitioner. 30. In para 4 of the E.P.; referring to voters of Annex.F the petitioner has alleged as follows: â€œYet with the connivance of some polling officers and misusing the position as on the date of polling and on the preceding dates when the first respondentâ€™s party was in power, deliberately the names of the above 202 voters have been struck off from the electoral roll denying them their basic voting right though they were electors under the relevant provisions of law.â€� According to this averment, the deletion of names of the 202 voters was with the connivance of the polling officers who, in turn, would get copy of the roll only in connection with the poll and on the day previous to it. Rules 2(gg), 31(3), 33A, 46, 47(1)(c), 48(3), 49F, 49K, 49U and 49V(1)(c) of the conduct of Election Rules make the position clear. The pleadings in para 4 would therefore mean that, according to the petitioner, the striking off referred to therein was made not by the Electoral Registration Officer or by any other Officers or staff in his office; but at some place after the electoral roll had reached the polling station or after delivery to the polling officials or Presiding Officer. It is also pertinent that there is no averment as to who did the act of striking off or as to when and where it was done. It is also pertinent that there is no averment as to who did the act of striking off or as to when and where it was done. The pleading that â€œthough they were electors under the relevant provisions of lawâ€� would mean that they were eligible voters as per the final electoral roll. But then there is no pleading at all anywhere in the election petition that the alteration was effected after the publication of the final electoral roll. The averment that this was done with the connivance of some polling officials is too vague a pleading; rather a garment of â€˜free sizeâ€™, which could be stretched and worn suitably and adapted for any prospective evidence. Who procured connivance or of which polling official is not stated in the petition. The said plea is also contradictory to the pleading in para 2 of the election petition that â€œeven prior to the actual date of polling it was rumoured in the Constituency that at the instance of service organisations owing allegiance to C.P.I.(M) and other parties constituting the L.D.F. the names of large number of eligible voters had been deliberately struck off from the electoral roll with a view to deny them voting right.â€� The purport of this plea is that the striking off was done before the electoral roll reached the polling stations, whereas the averment in para 3 that the striking off was done with the connivance of some polling officials runs contrary to it. If it is both ways, it is as vague as stating some official, somewhere, at some time manipulated the roll. 31. What is averred in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the election petition is that 202 voters mentioned in Annex.F who were in the electoral roll and who had also been given photo identity cards were denied voting right on the specious plea that their names were struck off â€œa few days before the polling and that their votes were refused.â€� There is no specific plea either that the names of these 203 voters found a place in the electoral roll as available on the date and hour fixed for giving nominations viz. 3.p.m. on 23.4.2001 or that the alleged deletion of names took place after the said time and date. On the other hand, the allegation is only that the names were struck off â€œa few days before the pollingâ€�. 3.p.m. on 23.4.2001 or that the alleged deletion of names took place after the said time and date. On the other hand, the allegation is only that the names were struck off â€œa few days before the pollingâ€�. â€˜A few daysâ€™ is an indefinite expression in so far as it may or may not relate to the period after 23.4.2001 with reference to the date for polling, which is 10.5.2001. 32. The pleadings with regard to Annex.G is also no different. Emphasis therein is on the aspect that the voters had been provided with photo identity cards earlier. That asserts only the fact that their names had found a place in the electoral roll on the date when the card was issued. The Registration of Electors Rules gives ample power to the Electoral Registration Officer to delete names as well and hence the fact that the name of a voter found a place in the electoral roll at a particular stage does not lead to a conclusion that he was an eligible voter as per the final electoral roll. In other words, the supply of a photo identity card to a voter is not a guarantee that his name was in the electoral roll as at 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001. Possibility of his name being removed before 23.4.2001 also cannot be ruled out. A careful perusal of para 4 of the election petition and the other paras aforementioned reveal that it is nowhere pleaded that the alleged deletion of names which disentitled the voters in question to register their votes took place after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 or even that their names existed in the final electoral roll as available at 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001. The plea, on the other hand, is only that their names appear to have been deliberately deleted â€œat a later stageâ€� at the instance of the partners of the LDF or by persons owing allegience to them with the intention of denying them voting right. The said plea is certainly insufficient to enable the petitioner to adduce evidence to establish a ground under Section 100(1)(d) of the R.P. Act, 1951. 33. The said plea is certainly insufficient to enable the petitioner to adduce evidence to establish a ground under Section 100(1)(d) of the R.P. Act, 1951. 33. A mere allegation that changes were brought into the electoral roll after voters had been given photo identity cards deprived them of voting right is also insufficient to provide a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d) in view of Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which provides as follows: S.23(3): No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry shall be made under Section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election.â€� Even at the risk of the repetition it may be mentioned here that paras 3, 4 and 5 of the election petition even as they stand amended now, do not specifically allege that any amendment; addition or deletion of any entry was made after the last date for making nominations, which alone would come within the sweep of Section 23(3) of the Act aforementioned. 34. Indrajit Barua & ors. v. Election Commission of India (AIR 1984 SC 1911) provides that once the final roll is published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral roll it is not open to any one to challenge the election from any constituency on the ground that the electoral roll was defective and that such a plea would not be a ground available for challenging the election under Section 100 of the Act. It was also held therein that the finality of the roll cannot be assailed in a proceeding challenging the validity of the election held on the basis of such electoral roll. 35. The right to vote contemplated in Section 62 of the Act of 1951 is a statutory right confined to persons who, for the time being are entered the electoral roll of a constituency. An elector, as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1951, is a person whose name is entered in the final electoral roll of the constituency and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the R.P. Act. 1950. 36. An elector, as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1951, is a person whose name is entered in the final electoral roll of the constituency and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the R.P. Act. 1950. 36. It is under Sec.61(b) of the R.P. Act, 1951 that photo identity cards are issued. The plea that in spite of issuance of a photo card right to vote was denied or for that matter even proof of that aspect cannot lead to an inference that there is violation of Section 23(3) because Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rule empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to delete name of any voter from the roll at any time before final publication of the roll on grounds like inadvertence or error in preparing the roll; that the voter was dead by the time the roll was published or that the voter concerned had ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency as at the time of publication of the final electoral roll. Mistakes, if any, committed in the exercise of that power cannot affect the declaration of result. The petitioner therefore cannot rest contented with a pleading that voters with photo identity cards were denied voting right. The mere fact that an identity card was obtained does not invest the recipient with a right to vote. The question is only whether any such voter was denied voting right with reference to the published final electoral roll. In the absence of any such definite plea, notwithstanding the fact that an issue has been raised, the evidence adduced on the point does not deserve any consideration. 37. In C.M.P.No.2268 of 2002, which sought amendment of the pleadings with respect to Annexure G, no amendment was sought for with respect of Annexure F. Para 4A was introduced in the Election Petition wherein it is averred as follows: â€œIt is thus obvious that the allegation made by the petitioner in para 4 of the E.P. that deletions have been made at a later stage after the prescribed date deliberately now stands substantiated. The petitioner also submits that he has already pointed out in the E.P. that large scale tampering, alterations etc, were made in the electoral roll even after the publication of the final voters list with a view to deny voting right to the persons mentioned in the E.P. and others.â€� According to me, the learned counsel for the first respondent is right in his submission that in the absence of any averment in para 4 of the E.P. that deletions were made after the prescribed date or after the publication of the final electoral roll or atlest in C.M.P.No.2268 of 2002 that the deletions were effected after the prescribed date or after the publication of the final voters list, a mere statement in the amendment application that those averments were already made in the E.P. would not suffice. The question is whether such averments already existed in the election petition as originally filed. If the pleadings are approached from the above perspective there cannot be any scope for a doubt that the petitioner has not set forth a clear plea that alterations were made after the publication of the final electoral roll, which alone could give him a cause of action under Sec. 100 (1) (d) of the Act. It is also to be mentioned here that C.M.P.No.2268 of 2002 was filed long after this court had found in the order dt.5.9.2001 in C.M.P.No.2705 of 2001 that there was no averments in the election petition that deletion were effected after 23-4-2001 and that there were was absence of plea amounting to material effects. The petitioner has not chosen to include such a specific plea in spite of the above finding when he moved C.M.P.No.2268 of 2002. According to me, the pleadings as available now does not enable the basis for building up a case that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper refusal or rejection of any vote based on tampering with the roll. As already mentioned, the fact that issues were raised on the point or that evidence was adduced in support of the contention, but varying and adding to what is pleaded, will not enable the petitioner to establish valid grounds based on tampering with the electoral roll. 38. As already mentioned, the fact that issues were raised on the point or that evidence was adduced in support of the contention, but varying and adding to what is pleaded, will not enable the petitioner to establish valid grounds based on tampering with the electoral roll. 38. Notwithstanding the findings as above, I propose to consider the contentions and evidence adduced by the rival sides with regard to violation of Rules and the question of tempering with the final electoral roll. PW12 was the Electoral Registration Officer, who was in charge of Nedumangad Constituency also. PW350, Sasidharan Nair, was the Deputy Tahsildar (Elections), who was assisting him. A reading of the evidence of these two witnesses show that there was no harmony in the functioning of these two officers, perhaps in consequence of their support to the rival organizations of Government servants owing allegiance to the LDF or the UDF. 39. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the evidence of these witnesses that there was no notice issued before deleting the names from the roll, especially with regard to those who had been issued with photo identity cards even in the year 2001. The evidence of PWs.165 to 238 denying receipt of any notice before deleting their names is relied on. According to RW8, who is the present Electoral Registration Officer, his predecessor, PW12, had fixed the outer time limit for submission of deletion reports as 4 p.m. on 23.4.2001 and some of the reports of the subordinates like Village Officers or Anganvadi workers were submitted on 23.4.2001 or even on 24.4.2001. Ext.x3(d), x3(f), x558 and x559 are relied on in this regard. It is true that there was no verification of the reports sent up by the Anganvady workers and the like and that reports were sent up even after the last date for filing nominations. However, these are not sufficient to conclude that the final electoral roll was tampered with because instances where deletion was effected based on report that was presented after 23.4.2001 are rare if not nil. However, these are not sufficient to conclude that the final electoral roll was tampered with because instances where deletion was effected based on report that was presented after 23.4.2001 are rare if not nil. It may be that PW12 had fixed the time for sending up the reports as 4 p.m. on 23.4.2001, but in the absence of any definite proof to show that very many reports received after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 were acted upon or that alterations were effected after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, the aberrations and violations cannot give a cause of action to the petitioner. 40. It is true that the deletion reports were given for printing to the Reprographic Centre only after 23.4.2001 and according to PW13 it was received back in the Electoral Registration office only on 2.5.2001. But then the publication of the roll could be done even without such copies. I am aware that PW350 stated in answer to a question that the final electoral roll was a printed electoral roll received from the Reprographic Centre. It is not clear whether he was referring to the particular copy that was published as final electoral roll or the copy thereof that was sent up to the polling stations. The contention of the petitioner that a printed electoral roll obtained from the Reprographic Centre alone could have been published on 23.4.2001 does not appear to be correct; because there is evidence that as and when changes were effected, the data in the computer with regard to the electoral roll was being updated and it was not impossible that the roll could be published even based on a print out there from. It is unsafe to act on conjectures alone in such matters. 41. PW12, no doubt, stated that photo identity cards were issued after verifying and ensuring that the name of the particular person found a place in the electoral roll. But then at the next moment itself he stated that after issuing the card, it was open to the Electoral Registration Officer to act upon other reports and delete names of persons who lost eligibility after inclusion earlier or the entry was erroneous and hence the fact of issuance of a photo identity card is not a guarantee that a personâ€™s name continued to appear in the published final electoral roll. The contention of the petitioner that a person who is provided with photo identity card would lose his right to vote only if he shifted out of the limits of the Constituency is incorrect. Mistakes also could be rectified. The admission of PW12 that he had received complaints alleging that ineligible persons had been added to the electoral roll; but he did not conduct any enquiry with notice to such voters with regard to such complaints also is no justification to draw an inference that the roll was one prepared after the time limit or that it was tampered with at any time thereafter. 42. PW12 admitted that there have been some deletions to support which he could not pin point any report received form subordinates. Sathyan Kani, Sl.No.982 of Ext.X3(e) Report and X30(1) is one such instance. The report was only that he was not available in station and not that he had shifted out of the limits of the Constituency which alone would have justified removal under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, PW12 agreed to the suggestion of the petitioner that as regards the report received after 23.4.2001 there was no opportunity for giving notice to voters before publication of the list. But then there is no clear evidence that such reports received after 23.4.2001 were also acted upon and deletions effected. 43. PW12 admitted that though he had not authorized any one to effect deletions the entire staff of the Taluk Office were involved in the process, considering the urgency and load of work involved. Commission of mistakes by one or the other officers in such a massive operation cannot be ruled out. It is for the petitioner to plead and prove such specific instances, if any, made after 3p.m. on 23.4.2001. That is wanting. 44. PW12 admitted that Rajamma, Sethukutty and Manian have been removed from the roll based on Ext.X3(d) report dt.24.4.2001. According to the first respondent he was only making a guess. Even accepting the said version as a sufficient admission the number of votes involved is only 3 and no presumption can be drawn based thereon that all the names included in Annexures F & G schedules were deleted after 23.4.2001. PW12 tried to pass on the entire responsibility for the violation on PW350 and he, in turn, tried to blame PW12. PW12 tried to pass on the entire responsibility for the violation on PW350 and he, in turn, tried to blame PW12. The disharmonious functioning of the two officers or the variations in their versions, probably on account of their political affiliations, will not be sufficient to shake the results of the election. 45. It is in evidence that based on an instruction given by PW348, District Election Officer, Ext.X69 target was fixed for sending up reports regarding dead or transferred voters. Even though Ext.X69 did not mention of any percentage for removal, the subordinate officers, it appears, misunderstood its scope and PW12 informed the Village Officers that if they failed to achieve the target mentioned in Ext.X69, action would be taken against the subordinates. It is certainly a matter of common knowledge that number of dead and transferred persons would fluctuate from place to place and it is illogical to fix any target number for the purpose. PW12, when asked about the logic behind his fixing of target in Ext.X69, stated that he acted based on instructions from the District Election Officer (PW348). However, it is seen from the evidence of PW6, Chief Electoral Officer and PW348, District Election Officer that neither had fixed any such target and hence the wrong instruction given by PW12 in the matter which apparently resulted in sending up of recommendations stating trivial reasons like not being found in the house at the time of verification or shifted to a nearby house within the same Ward or to some other place of the same Constituency etc. was a mistake committed by PW12 and that cannot affect the result of the election as long as it is not pleaded and proved that such change was made after publication of the final electoral roll. It is to be mentioned here that in a massive operation like conduct of election officers like PW12 are likely to faulter at some stage or the other and as long as it is not shown that the final electoral roll was tampered with after the deadline these aberrations cannot affect the result of the election. 46. As regards the alleged alterations the petitioner (PW5) does not appear to have any reliable or consistent case. 46. As regards the alleged alterations the petitioner (PW5) does not appear to have any reliable or consistent case. I have already referred to the fact that neither the original pleadings nor even the amended pleadings in the election petition contain a definite and categoric allegation that tampering of the electoral roll took place after the deadline of 23.4.2001. While in the box PW5 was asked about the relevant point of time and about his specific contention. In cross examination made on 27.8.2002 PW5 stated that his main grievance was that many voters whose names figured in the final electoral roll were denied facility of voting after the publication of the electoral roll. He elaborated this by stating that he had a case that after the final electoral roll was published deletions were made in the marked copy of the electoral roll available at the polling stations. However, not even a single instance where any such deletion was made by the polling officer could be brought to light during evidence. When he was confronted with this aspect he proceeded to state that his case was that alterations were made in the electoral roll made available to him on 5.5.2001; but these were not included in the earlier roll. This explains the reason why the pleadings did not include a specific case that the alterations were made after publication of the final electoral roll. He proceeded to state that his case was that alterations were made in the published electoral roll with the result that what was given to him on 5.5.2001 contained alterations vis-Ã -vis the final roll published and deletions were made from the final roll while preparing the marked copy of electoral roll as well. He also admitted that the prepared the list of 109 persons mentioned in Annex.G after verification and after ensuring that they were actually available in the limits of the Constituency. He was then confronted with the question as to whether the names of these 109 persons had found a place in the final electoral roll served on him on 5.5.2001. His answer was that some of the names in the copies given to him on 5.5.2001 were subsequently shifted to other parts of the electoral roll with the result that the voters could not understand the exact polling station in which they were to vote and consequently lost voting right. His answer was that some of the names in the copies given to him on 5.5.2001 were subsequently shifted to other parts of the electoral roll with the result that the voters could not understand the exact polling station in which they were to vote and consequently lost voting right. According to him 45 persons lost voting right on this account. As regards the 202 names mentioned in Annex.F the witness admitted that they were available in the copies of the final electoral roll given to him on 5.5.2001 at one place or the other. He was then asked why he did not produce before Court the copies of final electoral roll admittedly received by him on 5.5.2001. He answered that there was no special reason. The court then interevened and directed him to produce the same. This he produced as Ext.P11 series at a later stage. But then that includes some marked copies of final electoral roll as well. As to how he could lay hands on that official copy could not be explained by him. No attempt was made by the petitioner to show that the name of any of the voters mentioned in Annex.F was available in the concerned part of Ext.P11 series. The production of very many unsigned and undated reports recommending names for deletion which does not contain initials or office seal of the recipient has to be seen in this back ground. Was there an attempt on the part of the officials of the Electoral Registration Office to produce unauthentic records as deletion reports before Court? The answer is rather difficult to find. 47. Ext.P12 series is the copies of draft electoral roll received by the petitioner. With regard to the possibility of marked copy getting into the hands of a candidate PW12 Electoral Registration Officer stated that he could only say that after marked copies are returned to the Returning Officer by Polling Officials, it would be sent up to the Electoral Registration Officer after the election is over. He was suggesting that the petitioner possibly, could get some of the marked copies produced as Ext.P11 series from his successor. He was suggesting that the petitioner possibly, could get some of the marked copies produced as Ext.P11 series from his successor. What can be seen from the above is that not only that there was no specific plea or proof that alterations were made to final electoral roll after 3p.m. on 23.4.2001, but there was also no clear case for the petitioner as to when exactly the alleged changes were brought into effect. It is very doubtful whether he had seen the final roll as and when it was published. The evidence adduced, in the circumstances, is insufficient to conclude that any alterations were effected in the final electoral roll after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001. It also does not justify interference with the result of the election. Only if it were pleaded and established that particular voters, whose names were so deleted could not actually vote, coupled with the further fact that in case they had been allowed to vote would have voted for the petitioner, he could seek attempt interference with the result of the election. These Issues are hence answered against the petitioner. 48. Issue No.17: The petitioner has a case that the 33 persons mentioned in Annex.J (Ext.P10) were actually minors on the qualifying date viz. 1.1.2001 and that as such the votes registered by them on 10.5.2001 have to be eschewed from consideration. According to the first respondent, even assuming that any of the 33 persons were minors as on 1.1.2001, once they found their place in the final electoral roll, they could justly exercise their franchise on 10.5.2001 and their votes cannot be discarded. 49. Article 326 of the Constitution of India is relied on by the petitioner to contend that when the Constitution itself specifies that only persons who have completed 18 years as on the qualifying date would be eligible to vote, any act done by the electoral officers contrary thereto have to be ignored and that no vote registered by any person who had not completed 18 years as on 1.1.2001 could be taken into consideration for the purpose of declaration of results. The provisions of the Representation of the People Act, it is contended, have to be subservient to the Constitution and as such notwithstanding any interpretation given to any provisions of the Representation of the People Act while adjudging the above issue, the Constitutional provision has to be given paramount importance. 50. A Full Bench of this Court in Kunhiraman v. Krishna Iyer (1962 K.L.T. 275), held categorically that the election Court can go into the question whether one had attained the qualifying age and if the answer is in the negative, the vote should be excluded from the count. Mr.Ramkumar, while conceding that the aforesaid Full Bench decision was declared non-est by the Apex Court in the decision in R.Chandran v. M.V.Marappan (AIR 1973 SC 2362), submitted that though the decision is overruled, the discussion and consideration of the relevant question with reference to the Constitutional provisions made in the judgment are relevant and that the overruling of the decision being based on other aspects, discussions with regard to the relevant aspects have to be treated as valid. Even assuming that the observations of the above Full Bench with regard to the supremacy of the Constitutional provisions vis-Ã -vis those in the Representation of the People Act and the Rules concerned are forceful, I do not think that it can be declared that the vote tendered by a person, who was actually a minor as on the qualifying date, can be ignored or taken out of consideration in a proceeding of the present nature. The reason is that the Apex Court has declared the law on the point unambiguously and against the petitioner herein in Shyamdeo PD. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav (2000) 8 SCC 46), which was decided by a Bench of three Judges. Even though the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court aforementioned was not cited before the Apex Court, similar other Full Bench decisions on the point were considered therein. It was contended before the Apex Court that a person not entitled to be enrolled under the law as an elector, if he had actually voted based on the entry in the electoral roll would be a case of reception of void vote and that it would not make any difference if the ineligible person was enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll. The Constitutional provisions in Article 326 that only a person who is not less than 21 years of age (before amendment) on the qualifying date was entitled to be registered as a voter at the election, was taken note of. The provision in Section 2(1)(e) that elector as defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of the Constituency, who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 was also considered along with Section 62 of the 1951 Act, which provides that a person, who is enrolled in the electoral roll, would be entitled to vote in the Constituency unless he is subject to any of the disqualification referred to in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The fact that age limit is not specifically mentioned as an item of disqualification in the said Section 16 whereas Section 16(1)(c) provides that a person shall be disqualified for registration in the roll if he is disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices or other offences in connection with elections was also noticed. The Court observed that Section 62 could be divided into two parts; one couched partly in positive form and partly in the negative in so far as a person who is not entered in the electoral roll of any Constituency is not entitled to vote in that Constituency though he may be qualified under the Constitution and law to exercise the right of franchise. Therefore to be entitled to cast a ballot the person should only be entered in the electoral roll. It was further held that once a person is so entered he would be entitled to vote in that Constituency unless he is disqualified under sub section (2) to (5) of Section 62, which do not refer to minority as an item of disqualification. It was further held that once a person is so entered he would be entitled to vote in that Constituency unless he is disqualified under sub section (2) to (5) of Section 62, which do not refer to minority as an item of disqualification. In paragraph 15 of the judgment the Apex Court finally held that the provisions of Section 16 of the 1950 Act and Section 62 of the 1951 Act, read in juxtaposition go to show that while Section 16 of the 1950 Act provides for disqualification for registration in an electoral roll, (qualifications having been prescribed by Section 27 thereof) Section 62 of the 1951 Act speaks of right to vote which right is to be determined by reference to the electoral roll of the Constituency prepared under the 1950 Act. It was further held that the eligibility for registration having been tested with reference to Section 16 or Section 27 of the Act, as the case may be, and the electoral roll having been prepared under the 1950 Act, if a person is or become subject to any of the disqualifications provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 16(1), two consequences may follow. These are; first that his name might forthwith be struck off the electoral roll under sub section (2) of Section 16 of the 1950 Act and secondly, even if it is not so struck off, yet the person would be disqualified from exercising right to vote at the election by virtue of sub section (2) of Section 62 of the 1951 Act. But then Section 62 of the 1951 Act does not provide that a person who is not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll shall not be entitled to vote at the election. To put it briefly a disqualification under Section 16 of the 1950 Act has a relevance for and a bearing on the right to vote under Section 62 of the 1951 Act but being not qualified for enrollment in the electoral roll under Section 27 of the 1950 Act has no relevance or bearing on the right to vote at an election under Section 62 of the 1951 Act. That is so because of the distinction between â€œdisqualificationâ€� referred to in Section 16 and â€œnot being qualifiedâ€� referred to in Section 27. That is so because of the distinction between â€œdisqualificationâ€� referred to in Section 16 and â€œnot being qualifiedâ€� referred to in Section 27. After referring to the Constitutional Bench decision in Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B.Raju (1974) 3 SCC 415) it was held that a wrong decision on a question of eligibility for the purpose of entering a personâ€™s name in the electoral roll cannot be treated as a jurisdictional error which can be judicially reviewed before an Election Tribunal. Section 27 is not relevant in the present case; but then in the absence of reference to Article 326 or Section 62 and the only mention therein being of disqualification under section 16 I think the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 51. It is settled by the decision in Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh v. Jai Ram Verma (1977) 4 SCC 153) that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had, on that score, not been corrected before the last hour for making nominations and that it would be wrong on the part of the Presiding Officers not to allow voters whose names were recorded in the electoral roll of the Constituency to participate in the voting eventhough their names would have been deleted earlier. Once their names find a place in the marked copy of the electoral roll the Presiding Officer has to proceed as though they were valid and eligible voters. An electoral roll is deemed to be final and conclusive as far as fulfillment of qualification of a voter is concerned, even though it is not deemed final and conclusive by the Tribunal so far as the disqualification touching upon such persons are concerned, which are enumerated in Section 16 of the 1950 Act. 52. After taking note of the above finding as also the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the above line, which was followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (AIR 1968 Punj. 52. After taking note of the above finding as also the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the above line, which was followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (AIR 1968 Punj. 1(FB)) the learned Judges decided in Shyamdeo PD Singhâ€™s case (supra) that after the electoral rolls are finalized the voting of a person whose name is in the electoral roll cannot be challenged as being void on the ground that he was below the age prescribed as qualifying age and that challenge with regard to the vote registered by such a voter; may it be a minor actually, cannot be made by resorting to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act. The Bench summed up the legal position by stating that the inclusion of a person or persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral roll; though they were not qualified to be so enrolled cannot be a ground for setting aside the election of a returned candidate under sub clauses (3) or (4) of Clause (d) of sub section 1 of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and that a person, once enrolled in the electoral list by an authority empowered by law to prepare such roll or to include a name therein is entitled to cast a vote unless he is disqualified under sub sections 2 to 5 of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In other words, a person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement as laid down in Section 19 or 27(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. In view of the categoric finding on the subject by the Apes Court as above, the contention of the petitioner that evidence adduced by PWs 272 to 298 should be looked into and their exact age assessed cannot be accepted. Such an exercise would be futile since even after such a finding the Court will be helpless to declare that such votes are void or that they be reduced from the total tally. I, therefore, find that the acceptance of votes from the 33 voters mentioned in Annex.J does not amount to improper reception of votes. 53. Such an exercise would be futile since even after such a finding the Court will be helpless to declare that such votes are void or that they be reduced from the total tally. I, therefore, find that the acceptance of votes from the 33 voters mentioned in Annex.J does not amount to improper reception of votes. 53. Issues 2, 3 & 4: In view of my findings on the aforesaid points, it does not appear to me necessary to go into the evidence adduced with regard to double voting alleged in Annex.H; or with regard to 31 voters and the 63 voters mentioned in Annex.I who were alleged to have voted twice within the same Constituency. Suffice it to say though Annexure H makes mention of 31 voters whereas actually only 30 persons are involved in so far as Sl.Nos.5 and 17 of Annex.H relate to one and the same person. As PW5 the petitioner has admitted the said fact. Out of the said 30 persons only 12 were examined. They are PWs.301 to 311 and 314. The details of evidence with regard to the age relating to each of these voters, their position in the Register of voters, (ROV), and in the marked copy of electoral roll (MER), the exhibit number given to the miniature epic concerned which was prepared at the time of issuing photo identity cards to these voters etc. can be seen from the scheduled given below: 54. Even if a decoding is effected in respect of the votes tendered by these 12 witnesses and if it is ultimately found that all of them had voted in favour of the first respondent, the effect would be only reduction of 12 votes from the total number of votes which went in favour of the first respondent in so far as the allegation is only that they voted in different Constituencies of which Nedumanagad was only one and as such there was no question of reducing more than one vote each. 55. It was suggested to the petitioner (PW5) that Sl.Nos.6, 7, 25, 30 and 31 of Annex, H did not vote at all anywhere in the Nedumangad Constituency on 10.5.2001 and he denied the suggestion. (See page 99 of the cross examination portion). However, the petitioner did not chose to examine any of the said persons as witnesses. 55. It was suggested to the petitioner (PW5) that Sl.Nos.6, 7, 25, 30 and 31 of Annex, H did not vote at all anywhere in the Nedumangad Constituency on 10.5.2001 and he denied the suggestion. (See page 99 of the cross examination portion). However, the petitioner did not chose to examine any of the said persons as witnesses. It was also suggested to him that Sl.Nos.1,2,4,11 to 13, 18 and 26 to 28 of Anenx.H are known UDF workers and he denied that suggestion too. However, excepting Sl.Nos.1 and 2, no other person from among the aforesaid persons was examined as a witness. In short, assuming the wrost against the first respondent, what can be argued with reference to the evidence of the aforesaid witness is only that 12 votes would be reduced from the total number of votes secured by the first respondent. It is another matter whether all the 12 had really voted for the first respondent because that could be verified only when decoding of the EVM is effected to see the person in whose favour they actually voted. Suffice it to say that even theoretically speaking, there is possibility of only 12 votes being reduced from the total tally which went in favour of the first respondent when the votes were counted on 13.5.2001. 56. As regards the 62 persons named in Annex.I (Ext.P9) it was suggested to the petitioner as PW5 that Sl.Nos.58, 62 and 63 of the list did not vote at all on 10.5.2001 and that actually the voters mentioned as Sl.Nos.62 and 63 were in a hospital with their child under treatment. (See page 99 of cross examination dt.6.9.2002). Even though the petitioner denied the suggestion, no attempt was made by him to examine them. A negative inference has to be drawn in the matter. Likewise, when it was suggested to the petitioner on 6.9.2002 that Sl.Nos.4 to 6, 37, 41, 43, 51 and 57 of Annex.I were known UDF workers, he denied the suggestion, but only Sl.Nos.5, 43 and 51 were examined as witnesses. This indicates that the pleadings in the case were not made after due enquires. Likewise, when it was suggested to the petitioner on 6.9.2002 that Sl.Nos.4 to 6, 37, 41, 43, 51 and 57 of Annex.I were known UDF workers, he denied the suggestion, but only Sl.Nos.5, 43 and 51 were examined as witnesses. This indicates that the pleadings in the case were not made after due enquires. Whatever that be, the fact remains that out of the 62 persons only 37 were examined as per details given below: Even assuming that all these persons had voted twice within the Constituency as alleged and all the votes had gone in favour of the first respondent, what follows is only that 74 votes have to be reduced from the total tally obtained by the first respondent. What would follow from the above is that even accepting the argument of the petitioner advanced in the light of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses coming under Annex, H & I, the total number of votes that can be assailed and reduced from the number declared by the Returning Officer is only 12 + 74 i.e. 86. Since the magic figure in the present case is 156, the grant of benefit arising from Annexures H & I as proved is not sufficient to affect the result of the election proclaimed in this case. Found accordingly. 57. Issue No.1: The first respondent has a case that the verification made in the election petition is not in accordance with law in so far as it is not stated as to which are the pleadings verified by the petitioner on the basis of the knowledge of the petitioner and which others were verified upon information received and believed to be true. On this basis it is further contended that the first respondent is prejudiced due to lack of proper verification in making appropriate defence. I find no merit in this contention. In page 11 of the election petition the petitioner has stated that the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 12 and the grounds thereof mentioned in the election petition are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and that no part thereof is false and nothing which is relevant has been concealed. What is clear from the above is that the entire pleadings in the election petition are based on his own knowledge and information. What is clear from the above is that the entire pleadings in the election petition are based on his own knowledge and information. The petitioner does not want to shun the responsibility for any pleading and to say that he has only hearsay information regarding particular allegations or that somebody else is responsible for conveying the information. When he takes up the entire burden there is no basis for a contention that the verification is defective. The Issue is found in favour of the petitioner. 58. Issue No.7: The averments in para 10 of the election petition are that the electoral rolls prepared and made use of during the election have not been signed by the Officers who prepared it. Want of proper authentication is mentioned as a major defect in the rolls and it is contended therefore that no valid roll was in use in the election and that has materially affected the result of the election. Ext.X5 series are the electoral rolls used during the election. The marked copies of the electoral rolls produced before Court also show that facsimile signatures of the Electoral Registration Officer are available therein. Due to the enormous duty expected of the Electoral Registration Officer it would be physically impossible for him to affix his signature in each and every document. No authority has been placed before me to show that the use of facsimile signature in the rolls would be a material defect. Merely because only such signatures are available there is no authentication is not a contention which can be accepted. In the circumstances I find this issue against the first respondent. 59. Issue Nos.5,6 & 16: These do not arise for consideration in view of the concession at the Bar referred to in para 22 above. 60. Issue Nos.8 & 9: The necessity for answering this issue would have arisen had there been an established case that the number of votes established as prima facie defective would have exceeded 156. I have already found under the relevant issues that the evidence adduced before Court through examination of witnesses, who allegedly made double voting in different polling stations situated in the Nedumangad Constituency and double voting made in different Constituencies, one of which was Nedumangad, does not exceed 156. As such there is no need for effecting a decoding and to answer these issues. 61. As such there is no need for effecting a decoding and to answer these issues. 61. Issue Nos.10 to 12: In the state of affairs aforementioned, the petitioner is not entitled to get to finding from this Court that the declaration of result made by the Returning Officer on 13.5.2001 in favour of the first respondent herein is invalid for any reason. It necessarily follows that the petitioner cannot be declared to have won the election. Nor is the petitioner entitled to any other relief in the case. In the circumstances the Election Petition is found to be without merit and it is accordingly dismissed with cost of the first respondent, which is quantified as Rs.10,000/-. Intimate the substance of this decision to the Election Commission and to the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly forthwith and send an authenticated copy of this decision to the Election Commission as required by Section 103 of the Act.

Palode Ravi v. Mangode Radhakrishnan