Per Magray, J.:-- This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2012 rendered by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 306/2012, set­ting-aside order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal filed under Section 43 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), and directing re-hearing of the appeal. 2. Resume of the facts giving rise to the present appeal is given hereunder: 3. Appellant and respondent No. 8 herein, contested elections for Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa, KP 299, Budnambal Payeen, Kralpora, Kupwara, held on 08.05.2011. The Re­turning Officer declared the appellant as elected Sarpanch to the said Con­stituency. Feeling aggrieved of the said declaration, respondent No. 8 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara) on 18.05.2011. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Author­ity vide order dated 03.03.2012. The said order was called in question by respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, OWP No. 306/2012. 4. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that, after the counting process was over, he was de­clared to have obtained 262 votes as against 261 votes obtained by the ap­pellant herein, and thus, he was de­clared successful by one vote. In proof of this submission, respondent No. 8 has placed on record of the petition as annexure 'B' photocopy of a document showing the number of votes obtained by each of the participating candidates, bearing the signature of Returning Of­ficer as well as the Assistant Return­ing Officer. It is averred in the petition that, thereafter, some unknown per­son, accompanying the Returning Of­ficer, declared that there was recount­ing of votes and that one of the votes cast in favour of respondent No. 8 herein was invalid, reducing his number of votes to 261 and, therefore, a tie be­tween the two competing candidates. It is further averred that the said stranger announced that the winner would be decided by draw of lots, which, however, the appellant and respondent No. 8, i.e., the two competing candi­dates, did not agree. However, draw of lots was resorted to and appellant was wrongly declared successful in viola­tion of the law and rules governing the subject. It is further averred that the said stranger announced that the winner would be decided by draw of lots, which, however, the appellant and respondent No. 8, i.e., the two competing candi­dates, did not agree. However, draw of lots was resorted to and appellant was wrongly declared successful in viola­tion of the law and rules governing the subject. The writ petitioner, respon­dent No. 8 herein, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Sec­tion 43 of the Act, but the appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Au­thority without application of mind to the materials resting on the subject in his office. 5. The appellant herein, who was declared successful in the elections and impleaded as respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, in his reply to the writ petition has stated that the writ peti­tioner has manipulated documents and fabricated annexure 'B' appended to the writ petition; that since there was a tie, both the candidates agreed and consented to draw of lots which was done in their presence; that in the draw of lots he was declared the winner in presence of the writ petitioner; that certificate in the Form PEL 17, i.e., the statement of counting of votes for Sarpanch, duly signed by the Counting Supervisor and verified and signed by the Returning Officer, was issued in his favour, which also bears signatures of both the competing candidates. 6. The learned Writ Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and disposed of the writ petition, holding and observing as under: "Learned counsel for official respon­dents in his fairness admitted that there is no provision contained in Panchayat Raj Act and Rules made thereunder for declaring the candi­dates successful to the post of Sarpanch by draw of lots. Elections are to be conducted strictly in accordance with Panchayat Raj. The issue shall have to be recon­sidered by the Appellate Authority. For the above stated reasons this writ petition is disposed of in the fol­lowing manner: The impugned order dated 03.03.2012 is set aside. The Ap­pellate Authority is directed to re­hear the case and pass orders in accordance with law. The issue shall have to be recon­sidered by the Appellate Authority. For the above stated reasons this writ petition is disposed of in the fol­lowing manner: The impugned order dated 03.03.2012 is set aside. The Ap­pellate Authority is directed to re­hear the case and pass orders in accordance with law. The Appel­late Authority to issue notice to respondent No. 3 in the Appeal viz., elected candidate and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties pass orders in accordance with law preferably within two weeks from the date copy of this order is served." 7. In this appeal, filed by respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, i.e., the re­turned candidate, it is contended that the Writ Court has left the controversy unresolved; that draw of lots has statu­tory recognition; that the grievances projected by respondent No. 8 herein in the appeal filed before the Appel­late Authority and/or in the writ peti­tion about the election of the appellant herein as Sarpanch do not fall within the ambit of Section 43 of the Act; that the whole case of respondent No. 8 herein as put forth by him in his ap­peal and the writ petition is based on the documents issued by the Assistant Returning Officer, who, according to the appellant, had no role to play in the election process of a Sarpanch. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the mat­ter. 9. The mechanism for redressal of disputes regarding elections contem­plated by the Act is provided in Section 43 thereof. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the mat­ter. 9. The mechanism for redressal of disputes regarding elections contem­plated by the Act is provided in Section 43 thereof. It provides as under: "(1) The election of a person as Sarpanch, Panch of a Halqa Panchayat or as a Chairman of the Block Development Council shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such author­ity within such time and in such man­ner as may be prescribed on the grounds that: - the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influ­ence has extensively prevailed at the election; that the result of the election has been materially affected - by the improper acceptance or re­jection of any nomination; or by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed there under." The aforesaid provision of the Act makes it clear that an election dispute can be raised only on two grounds, namely, (i) that the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue in­fluence has extensively prevailed at the election; and (ii) that the result of the election has been materially af­fected either by the improper accep­tance or rejection of any nomination or by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. 10. In the instant case, it is not the allegation that any corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has pre­vailed at the election or there has been any improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination. The allegations would at best fall within the purview of Section 43(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, i. e., the result of the election has been materi­ally affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules framed there-under. 11. It is curious that neither the appellant nor respondent No. 8 has placed a copy of the appeal/application, stated to have been presented to the Appellate Authority, on record either of the writ petition or of this appeal. 11. It is curious that neither the appellant nor respondent No. 8 has placed a copy of the appeal/application, stated to have been presented to the Appellate Authority, on record either of the writ petition or of this appeal. Therefore, this Court is unable to as­certain as to what allegations or facts were pleaded in the appeal/application and whether such allegations or facts would bring the dispute within the pur­view of the ground envisaged under the aforesaid provision of law, namely, Sub-section (1)(b)(ii) of Section 43 of the Act. 12. However, perusal of the order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Appel­late Authority reveals that the losing candidate had stated in the appeal that the counting process was held in dero­gation of norms laid down for the same. In terms of the aforesaid provision of law, it was enjoined upon the Appellate Authority to return a finding whether or not, on the basis of the set of facts or allegations pleaded in the appeal/ap­plication, especially the one mentioned in the order, as aforesaid, that the counting process was held in deroga­tion of prescribed norms, the result of the election had been materially af­fected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules framed there-under. The Appellate Au­thority instead has recorded as under: "After perusal of records available on the file, I am of the opinion that it was the appellant who opted for drawing lots and has also accepted the re­counting as is evident from Form. PEL-17 on which both the appellant and respondent No. 03 have put their sig­natures. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable, hence is dismissed." The Appellate Authority, thus, has not returned a finding as is envisaged by the law. Instead, the Appellate Au­thority has held that the appeal is not maintainable when there is no provi­sion contained in the Act or the Rules framed there-under requiring determi­nation of such a question. 13. It needs a mention here that both the learned counsels represent­ing the appellant and respondent No. 8 as well as the learned Additional Advo­cate General have fairly conceded that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules framed there-under envisaging or contemplating draw of lots in the event there is a tie between two candidates securing the highest number of votes. This methodology is stated to be contemplated by the in­structions contained in Clause 11 un­der Chapter XIV, viz. Counting of Votes, of the Handbook for Conduct of Panchayat Elections, 1997 issued by the Election Authority professedly un­der Section 36 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. We do not wish to go into the ques­tion whether or not such a power of the Election Authority, viz. the Chief Elec­toral Officer of the State, is traceable to Section 36 of the Act and/or Rule 3 of the Rules framed there-under, since it is a question relatable to the ground contemplated under Sub-section 1(b)(ii) of Section 43 of the Act to be deter­mined by the Appellate Authority while dealing with the appeal/application filed before it. Further more, the in­structions, so issued by the Election Authority have not been challenged by respondent No. 8 in his writ petition. Therefore, we leave the question open to be decided as and when the occasion arises. 14. Since we are of the opinion that the Appellate Authority has not re­turned a finding as was required of him under Section 43 of the Act, we concur with the direction of the learned Writ Court, of course, for our own reasons recorded hereinabove. Resultantly, this Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed alongwith the connected CMP(s). We reiterate the directions contained in the order of the learned Writ Court dated 31.10.2012, however, with the modification that the time to pass orders in accordance with law, as directed therein, shall run from the date copy of this order is served on the Appellate Authority. Interim direction, if any, subsisting shall stand vacated. _