ORDER 1. Challenging the order, Annexure P-1 dated 11th July, 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior dismissing the Election. Petition No. 1012004-05 filed by the petitioner under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1993"), petitioner has filed this petition. 2. Facts in a nutshell necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner claims to be a resident of Basai, District Datia. She is an elected member of the Panchayat from Ward No.4. Similarly, respondent No.1 is elected as member from Ward No.6. The post of President, District Panchayat, Datia is reserved for woman belonging to general category. Election to the post of President was held on 23rd February, 2005 and for the said purpose, a meeting was called for in accordance with statutory rules presided over by the Collector, District Datia and in all ten elected members of the Panchayat were present in the meeting. Election for electing the President, District Panchayat was held in accordance with provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and Vice-President) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Election Rules, 1995"). In the said election, the petitioner and respondent No.1 were the only contesting candidates. The respondent No.1 having been declared as elected, aggrieved thereof, election petition as contemplated under section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner. In the said election petition, the main ground urged by the petitioner was that ten members participated in the voting. As per the statutory rules and in particular rule 16 of the Election Rules, 1995, the manner of recording votes, counting of votes and declaration of result is contemplated. Voting is to be done by the members concerned by placing a cross mark (x) on the ballot paper against the name of the person for whom he or she wishes to vote, this is provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 16. According to the petitioner out of ten votes cast in the said election, five votes are found to have been cast in favour of the petitioner wherein cross marks (x) are indicated. Similarly, in the remaining five votes, cross mark (x) against the name of respondent No.1 were indicated only in four ballot papers and in one a tick (v) mark was indicated. Similarly, in the remaining five votes, cross mark (x) against the name of respondent No.1 were indicated only in four ballot papers and in one a tick (v) mark was indicated. According, petitioner had received five votes with proper cross-marks against her name and the respondent No.1 had received four votes with proper cross mark and one vote was not marked with cross mark but it was voted with tick mark (v), that being so, there is violation of sub-rule (4) of rule 16 of the Election Rules, 1995. According to the petitioner, even though one vote was invalid, the same was counted as valid in favour of respondent No.1, and the respondent No.1 and the petitioner were declared to have received five votes each, therefore, draw of lot was done and thereafter respondent No.1 was declared as elected. It was submitted that as per requirement of law, casting of vote has to be done by putting cross marks against the name of the person who has to be elected and by departing from the same, treating a vote cast with a different mark to be valid, election of respondent No.1 is said to be invalid. Inter alia contending that a invalid vote has been taken into consideration for declaring the respondent No.1 to have received five votes and thereby illegality has been committed petitioner had filed the election petition. It was also stated by the petitioner that an invalid vote was made by one Chakkulal in favour of the respondent No.1. Shri Chakkulal was brought over by the respondent No.1 and there was previous arrangement between Shri Chakkulal and the respondent No.1, and as per this arrangement tick (v) mark was put in the ballot paper to identify this voter. Inter alia contending that the vote by Shri Chakkulal was a result of pre-arrangement made between the respondent No.1 and the said voter, election was challenged by the petitioner in the election petition filed under section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. This contention is rejected by the learned Commissioner and the election petition is dismissed after holding that the vote with tick mark (v) is valid and rightly counted in favour of the respondent No.1. 3. This contention is rejected by the learned Commissioner and the election petition is dismissed after holding that the vote with tick mark (v) is valid and rightly counted in favour of the respondent No.1. 3. In the election petition, respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the election petition on the ground that the election petition is not personally presented by the election petitioner, Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav, and therefore, as the provisions of rule 3(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 is violated, election petition should be dismissed. This objection was upheld by the learned Commissioner and the election petition is dismissed on this ground also. 4. Shri Vivek Thankha, learned senior advocate assisted by Kumari Anjali Banerjee. advocate for the petitioner argued that once the statutory rules require casting of vote by putting a cross mark in the ballot paper, deviating from the same and putting a different mark is unsustainable and as the mandatory provision is violated, the said vote cast in favour of respondent No.1 has to be treated as a invalid vote. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ravi Thakur v. Shivshankar Patel and others [ 1997(1) JLJ 89 = AIR 1997 M.P. 136 ), Shri Vivek Thankha, learned senior counsel argued that in the present case as one vote cast in favour of respondent No.1 was having a (1) right mark and not a (x) cross mark, it was an invalid vote and by counting the same in favour of the respondent No.1, the competent authorities have committed illegality, and therefore, the entire election stands vitiated. Kumari Anjali Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that putting cross mark is a mandatory requirement and the said mandatory requirement having been violated, election stands vitiated. Apart from referring to the provisions of rule 16(4) of the Election Rules, 1995, learned counsel invites my attention to the guidelines and instructions issued to the presiding officers by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Panchayat and Village Development and circular dated 23rd February, 2006 issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Elelction Commission to the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. It is submitted that in the guidelines and the circular issued, it is clearly mentioned that putting a cross mark is a mandatory requirement and a vote cast by any other mark is invalid and should not be counted. Accordingly, it was argued by Kumari Anjali Banerjee that having counted one vote which was invalid as a valid vote in favour of the respondent No.1, the competent authorities have committed illegality which warrants interference in these proceedings. 5. Thereafter, inviting my attention to the order sheet dated 2nd March, 2005 (Annexure P-12) maintained in the office of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, it is submitted that Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav has personally appeared and presented the election petition. In the light of these observations made in the order sheet, Kumari Anjali Banarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1995 are complied with and ignoring this observation in the order sheet, holding that the election petition is not properly presented by the petitioner, it is argued that the Election Tribunal has committed grave irregularity. In support thereof, learned counsel invites my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheodan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam [ AIR 1969 SC 1024 ], and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shastri [ AIR 1993 All. 104 ]. Learned counsel taking me through the evidence of the respondent No.1, Smt. Archna tried to emphasise that in rejecting the election petition, learned Tribunal has committed grave error which warrants interference in these proceedings, and therefore, learned counsel for petitioner prays by declaring election of respondent No.1 as invalid and a further declaration that the petitioner is elected President of the Janpad Panchayat, Datia. 6. Refuting the aforesaid contention. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 argued that merely because some other mark is put in the ballot paper that by itself is not a ground to hold the election as invalid or illegal. It was argued by learned senior counsel that the provisions of rule 16(4) of the Election Rules, 1995 are only directory in nature and not mandatory and until and unless the rules are found to be mandatory, interference in the matter cannot be made. It was argued by learned senior counsel that the provisions of rule 16(4) of the Election Rules, 1995 are only directory in nature and not mandatory and until and unless the rules are found to be mandatory, interference in the matter cannot be made. Shri Tiwari, learned senior counsel argued that the purpose of putting a mark different from the one prescribed in the rule should be made as a result of arrangement between the parties for casting a vote in favour of a particular candidate on the basis of such arrangement and a device to identify the person. It was submitted that in the absence of any evidence to show that such a arrangement was made interference merely on the basis of putting a different mark cannot be made. Inviting my attention to the grounds raised in the election petition in this regard as contained in Annexure P-4, Shri Tiwari submits that in paragraph 6, it is stated that the arrangement for casting votes in favour of respondent No.1 by the so called Chakkulal was not made before the election petitioner but before one, Jaswant Singh. Taking me through the statement of election petitioner, Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav, Shri Tiwari learned senior counsel argued that the arrangement made as averred in paragraph 6 of the election petition is not proved. Shri Jaswant Singh is not examined and the pre-arrangement made being not established, the election of respondent No.1 is not vitiated. Inviting my attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Shradha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant and others [ AIR 1982 SC 1569 ], and in particular observations made in paragraph 15 thereof, it was emphasised that until and unless there is evidence to show that a particular mark in the ballot paper was a result of prior arrangement made, vote cannot be rejected on the ground that a different mark being put in the ballot paper. Taking me through the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ravi Thakur (supra), Shri Tiwari points out that until and unless putting a particular mark is not a mandatory requirement under law, it is to be held as directory in nature and violation of such a provision, directory in nature without proof of pre-arrangement does not vitiate the election. Accordingly, Shri Tiwari submits that on the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition, the election of the respondent No.1 cannot be declared as invalid. He also invites my attention to certain observations made by this Court in the case of Radheshyam Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and others [ 1996 JLJ 459 ], in support of his contention. As far as presentation of election petition by the petitioner is concerned, taking me through the order sheet dated 2nd March, 2005 (Annexure P-12) maintained in the office of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior, Shri Tiwari points out that this order sheet indicates that the election petition was filed by the petitioner. Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav on the previous day, i.e., on 1st March, 2005. Shri Tiwari submits that the record indicates that on the previous day, i.e., 1st March, 2005, the Commissioner, Gwalior was on leave, and therefore, election petition was presented as per rule before the Office Superintendent and the office note prepared indicates that the election petition was submitted by one Rajiv Gautam. Taking note of various factors, the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner was that the election petition was not personally presented by the petitioner. This is a finding of fact, and therefore, Shri Tiwari argued that this fact has to be accepted that the election petition was not filed by the election petitioner herself and the requirement of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 is not complied with, therefore, the election petition has to be dismissed by the specified officer under rule 8 and in doing so, the specified officer has not committed any error in the matter warranting interference in this petition. In support of his contention with regard to mandatory requirement of presentation of the election petition by the election petitioner, Shri Tiwari invites my attention to the principles laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Santosh Kumar Patel v. Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap Patel and another [ 1999(1) MPLJ 88 ] and Tara v. Dabla alias Lalita and others [2002(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 157= 2002(3) MPLJ 591 ]. Accordingly, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Accordingly, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the facts that have come on record, it is clear that two questions arise for consideration in this petition. 9. The first question would be as to whether the election petition was properly filed by the petitioner in accordance with rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 and the effect of on-filing of the election petition by the election petitioner? . 10. The second question requiring consideration is as to whether one vote cast by indicating a tic mark (v) in favour of respondent No.1 can be treated as a valid vote in favour of the respondent No.1 ? 11. As far as the first question is concerned. Rule of 1995 contemplates the procedures for filing of a election petition and the manner in which election petitions are to be decided. Rule 3 provides for presentation of election petition and sub-rule (1) contemplates that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the election petition was submitted by a person authorised in writing by her as provided under the second part of the aforesaid rule. It is the case of the petitioner that it is the petitioner herself who appeared and presented the election petition before the specified officer, that being so, it would be relevant to refer to the material available on record to see as to whether this contention of the petitioner is correct. 12. Order sheet, Annexure P-12 maintained in the office of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior is dated 2nd March, 2005. This order sheet indicates that the petitioner, Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav herself appeared and presented the election petition on 1st March, 2005, this order sheet of 1st March, 2005 is not signed by the Commissioner, it is signed by the Office Superintendent as the Commissioner was on leave. The order sheet of 2nd March, 2005 indicates that the petitioner appeared in the office on the previous day, i.e., 1st March, 2005 and filed the election petition. The order sheet of 2nd March, 2005 indicates that the petitioner appeared in the office on the previous day, i.e., 1st March, 2005 and filed the election petition. When the matter was taken up for consideration by the specified officer, record pertaining to presentation of the election petition were summoned and it was found from the record that on 1st March, 2005, the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was on leave and on 1st March, 2005, the election petition was submitted before the Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. According to the record, certain directives and circulars have been issued by the State Government exercising power and section 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and after taking note of the provisions of rule 4(1)(ka) and 5 of the Rules of Procedure pertaining to working of the revenue Courts, it is seen that the Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner is empowered to receive papers and cases and other disputes presented before him and prepare an order sheet. Accordingly, in this case, on 1st March, 2005 a note-sheet and an order sheet was• prepared by the Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior. When this note-sheet was examined by the Election Tribunal, it is found that on 1st March, 2005, the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was on leave and one Rajeev Gautam appeared and presented the election petition before the Superintendent on 1st March, 2005. It is held by the election Tribunal that the order sheet dated 2nd March, 2005 signed by the Commissioner and the note-sheet dated 1st March, 2005 prepared by the Superintendent indicate different facts. Even though in the order dated 2nd March, 2005 a mention is made that petitioner, Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav appeared and presented the election petition on 1st March, 2005, the record indicates that the petition was in fact submitted by one Shri Rajeev Gautam on 1st March, 2005, as in this note-sheet prepared by the Superintendent there is no mention with regard to petitioner being present at the time of presentation of the election petition. The Election Tribunal has accepted the note-sheet prepared by the Office Superintendent to be correct and by taking note of the said fact, finding recorded is that the election petition was presented on 1st March, 2005 by one Shri Rajeev Gautam and not by the petitioner. The Election Tribunal has accepted the note-sheet prepared by the Office Superintendent to be correct and by taking note of the said fact, finding recorded is that the election petition was presented on 1st March, 2005 by one Shri Rajeev Gautam and not by the petitioner. This finding of fact was recorded by the Tribunal after scrutiny of the record and there is no material available before this Court to hold that this finding is a perverse or illegal finding. Finding of fact properly recorded on the basis of the material available on record cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution until and unless cogent material is produced to show that the finding recorded is perverse or erroneous to such an extent that interference has to be made by this Court, except for placing reliance on the order sheet dated 2nd March, 2005 (Annexure P-12), no cogent material is produced before this Court to show that the finding recorded by the Commissioner in paragraph 7 of the impugned order with regard to presentation of the election petition on 1st March, 2005 before the Officer Superintendent by one Shri Rajeev Gautam is an erroneous and perverse finding. Order sheet dated 2nd March, 2005 filed as Annexure P-12 only mentions about presentation of the election petition by the petitioner on the previous day, i.e., on 1st March, 2005. However, the Commissioner being on leave on 1st March, 2005, the Election Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the note-sheet dated 1st March, 2005 prepared by the Office Superintendent to hold that the election petition has not been presented by the petitioner but it is filed by one Shri Rajeev Gautam, this is a just and reasonable finding and I see no reason to interfere with the same. 13. It is not the case of the petitioner that Shri Rajeev Gautam was duly authorised to file the election petition on her behalf and no material is adduced to show that the election petition was filed by Shri Rajeev Gautam as per requirement of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of Rules, 1995. Under such circumstances, I see no error in the finding and order passed by the election Tribunal in this regard. 14. Under such circumstances, I see no error in the finding and order passed by the election Tribunal in this regard. 14. A election petition presented contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 is not maintainable and has to be dismissed in view of the mandatory requirement of rule 8 of the Rule, 1995. 15. Accordingly, finding recorded by the election Tribunal that the election petition is not properly presented is a proper finding and the election petition was rightly dismissed. This is also in conformity with the law laid down in the case of Suman Santosh Kumar Patel (supra), and Tara (supra). 16. Even though the election petition is dismissed finding the same to be not properly presented still the learned Tribunal has gone into the question on merit also and before this Court as parties have addressed the question on merit, accordingly, it is thought appropriate to address the second question framed even though after recording the aforesaid finding with regard to the first question, the same is not necessary as the petition can be dismissed on this ground itself. 17. So far as the second question is concerned, rule 16(4) of the Election Rules, 1995 entemplates that every Panchas or Member wishing to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper. The Presiding Officer shall put his signature on the ballot paper before supply, So as to indicate its authenticity. The voter shall then proceed to the place set apart for voting and put a cross (x) on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he or she wishes to vote, he is required to fold the same so as to maintain secrecy and insert the same in the ballot box placed in the view of the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, the manner in which the ballot box is to be opened and declaration of result is provided in sub-rule 6(i) and (ii) of rule 16. Under sub-rule (6)(i) of rule 16, it is indicated that immediately after the voting is over, the Presiding Officer shall open the ballot box and take out the ballot papers and count them and record the number of votes in a statement. Sub-rule (6)(ii) contemplates five category of cases in which the ballot paper is held to be invalid. Under sub-rule (6)(i) of rule 16, it is indicated that immediately after the voting is over, the Presiding Officer shall open the ballot box and take out the ballot papers and count them and record the number of votes in a statement. Sub-rule (6)(ii) contemplates five category of cases in which the ballot paper is held to be invalid. These are as under: (a) if it bears the signature of member or contains any word or any visible representation by which he can be identified; or (b) if marks are placed thereon against more than one candidates; or (c) if the mark is so placed thereon as to make it doubtful for which candidate the vote was intended to be given; or (d) if no mark is placed thereon; or (e) if it does not bear the signature of Presiding Officer. 18. A perusal of the categories indicate that putting of any other mark than the one prescribed under sub-rule (4) is not contemplated in the category for declaring a ballot paper as invalid. If only marks are placed in a ballot paper in a manner to make it doubtful as to for which candidate the vote was intended to be given then the same becomes invalid. While considering the question in the case of Ravi Thakur (supra), the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 was taken note of and in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid judgment, learned Judge has taken note of the requirement of rule 86(12) of the Rules, and it is indicated in this para that marking on a ballot paper with a cross mark was mandatory and the consequence of non-compliance is that the vote is to be declared as invalid if it is put by any other mark than the cross mark as contemplated under the Rules. It is, therefore, clear that in the Rules of 1991, there was a specific provision for declaring a vote as void in case it is cast by putting any other mark than the cross mark as contemplated under the rules. In the Rules, 1995 no such mandatory provision for declaring the vote as invalid is provided for. It was because of this reason that the learned Election Tribunal found that the requirement of rule 16(4) is directory in nature and not mandatory. In the Rules, 1995 no such mandatory provision for declaring the vote as invalid is provided for. It was because of this reason that the learned Election Tribunal found that the requirement of rule 16(4) is directory in nature and not mandatory. The election Tribunal has done so after taking note of certain observations made by the Supreme Court which are referred to by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ravi Thakur (supra). As complete reading of the judgment in the case of Ravi Thakur (supra), indicates that a ballot paper if marked in any other form than the statutory prescribed one would become invalid under two conditions; the first condition is that if the statutory rule contemplates the vote to be declared invalid if marked in a different manner and the second condition is that if it is proved from the evidence and circumstances available on record that the marking made was as a result of pre-arrangement by the voter and the person in whose favour he has put the vote for identification as a proof for the promise made by the voter to the contesting person. If both or any of these conditions are fulfilled the vote can be declared as invalid. In the present case, as far as the statutory rules are concerned, the grounds contemplated for declaring a vote as invalid as contained in sub-rule (6) of rule 16 of Rules, 1995 do not indicate that a vote cast by putting any mark other than the cross mark is invalid. That being so, the requirement of putting a cross mark is only directory in nature and not mandatory. In this regard, the observations made by the election Tribunal in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order are in consonance with the principles laid down in 'this regard in the judgment of Ravi Thakur (supra). 19. That being so, casting of a vote by putting a different mark can be held to result in an invalid vote if it is proved by cogent evidence that the same is a result of pre-arrangement and agreement between the parties. In this regard the pleadings are made in the election petition filed under section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 as contained in Annexure P-4. Specific averments are made in paragraph 6 of the election petition, so also in paragraph 5.6, in this writ petition. In this regard the pleadings are made in the election petition filed under section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 as contained in Annexure P-4. Specific averments are made in paragraph 6 of the election petition, so also in paragraph 5.6, in this writ petition. According to the averments made in this petition, arrangement was made in the presence of one, Jaswant Singh. The arrangement is not made in the presence of the petitioner and she does not say that she heard that arrangement being made between Chakkulal and the respondent No. 1 That being so, Jaswant Singh was the only witness who could testify about the arrangement made. Jaswant Singh was not examined to testify the pre-arrangement. The evidence of Smt. Geeta Devi Yadav, in this regard is hearsay and the said evidence cannot be relevant for establishing this fact. From the statements of witness available on record and in particular the statement of Makhan Singh and Jagdish Singh Rawat, it is stated that the Collector has not informed the members that they have to put a cross mark only in the ballot paper. That apart, as held by this Court, once the requirement of rule 16(4) of Rules, 1995 is found to be directory and not mandatory, I am of the considered view that putting a tick mark in the ballot paper will not invalidate a vote unless and until evidence suggest that the mark was put by an agreement as an arrangement between the voter and the candidate. In the present case, evidence available on record is not sufficient to hold that there was any arrangement or agreement between the respondent No.1 and the person who has put the vote by putting a tick mark, and therefore, the aforesaid vote cannot be declared as invalid merely on the ground that it contains a mark other than the one contemplated under sub-rule (4) of rule 16 of the Rules, 1995. In the case of Ravi Thakur (supra), the learned Judge has placed reliance on certain judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Era Sezhivan v. T.R. Balu [ AIR 1990 SC 838 ], Sivaswami v. Melaikanan [ AIR 1983 SC 1293 ], taken note of and it is observed that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court indicates that a ballot shall not be rejected as invalid merely because it is showing some mark different from the one contemplated under the statutory provisions unless it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking so as to identify the person. It was observed by the Supreme Court it is further subject to the statutory rule if it contains an express provision for declaring the vote as invalid. In the present case, evidence adduced is not sufficient to bring the ballot paper in the second category as indicated hereinabove, and therefore, I see no merit in the case and the second question is answered against the petitioner. The Election Tribunal in the present case after evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available before it has recorded a reasonable finding and has upheld the election of the respondent No.1. This finding, for the grounds and reasons indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perverse or illegal or erroneous to such an extent that interference in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution is called for. 20. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of hearing placing reliance on the guidelines and the instructions issued by the authority tried to emphasise that the requirement of putting cross mark is a mandatory requirement. I am afraid the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. 20. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of hearing placing reliance on the guidelines and the instructions issued by the authority tried to emphasise that the requirement of putting cross mark is a mandatory requirement. I am afraid the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Once the statutory rules contains specific categories of cases in which a vote can be declared as invalid then the executive instructions issued cannot substitute the statutory provisions of law, that being so, the executive instructions will only have guiding force and cannot substitute the legislative provisions, in the absence of the legislative intent being established for declaring a vote as invalid if cast contrary to sub-rule (4) of rule 16 of Rules, 1995, the guidelines and instructions issued by the State Government by the aforesaid two circulars referred to hereinabove cannot be read into the statutory rule as the same is not permissible, and therefore, on the basis of the guidelines and circulars issued, this Court cannot hold that the provisions of casting a vote by putting a cross mark is a mandatory requirement, breach of which invalidates the vote. 21. Accordingly, finding no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and finding this petition to be wholly misconceived and unsustainable, petition is dismissed without any order so as to cost.