JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur 1. The petitioner contested elections as ward member of Gram Panchayat Talkehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. After counting of votes, the Returning Officer concerned declared him elected. However, one Roshan Lal, respondent No.5 herein challenged the election of the petitioner herein as ward member to Ward No.5 of Gram Panchayat Talkehar on the ground that since the names of respondents No.7 and 8 herein stood entered in the voters lists of both Gram Panchyat Talkehar and Gram Panchayat Passel,even when clause (f) to Rule 14 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 renders a person to be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll, if he is already registered as a voter in a Municipality or in some other Gram Sabha, hence, given the existence of the names of respondents No.7 and 8 in the voters lists of Gram Panchayat Talkehar and Gram Panchayat Passel, untenably facilitated both the respondents No.7 and 8 herein to in the elections concerned proceed to cast their votes in both Gram Panchayat Talkehar as well as in Gram Panchayat Passel. The records of the case were summoned and were produced before this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General. A perusal of the voters lists qua both Gram Panchayat Passel and Gram Panchayat Talkehar manifests the obvious fact as surging forth therefrom of the polling officer manning the polling booths concerned falling in the Gram Panchayats aforesaid having underlined the names of both respondents No.7 and 8 herein in consonance with the apt instructions in vogue for manifesting the fact of both having cast their votes in the polling booths concerned of both Gram Panchayats Passel and Talkehar. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 herein contends that with the difference of votes or margin of victory inter se the petitioner herein and respondent No.5 being of one vote, as such, the factum of both respondents No.7 and 8 having cast votes qua election of ward member of Gram Panchayat Talkehar as well as of ward member of Gram Panchayat Passel, materially affected the fate or the out come of the elections to the ward member of Gram Panchayat, Talkhear. Consequently, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the impugned orders rendered by the authorities below comprised in Annexures P-1 and P-2 are anvilled upon a balanced appreciation of the evidence on record. 2. Consequently, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the impugned orders rendered by the authorities below comprised in Annexures P-1 and P-2 are anvilled upon a balanced appreciation of the evidence on record. 2. This Court has given a circumspect thought to the findings and conclusions recorded by both the authorities below constituted in Annexures P-1 and P-2. Both the authorities below have dwelt in extenso qua the factum of both respondents No.7 and 8 herein having cast votes both in Gram Panchayat Taklehar as well as in Gram Panchayat Passel which findings when borne out by the material placed on record before them as also placed before this Court, cannot hence come to be unhinged, necessarily then the findings and conclusions recorded by both the authorities below qua the factum of both respondents No.7 and 8 herein having cast their votes in infraction of the mandate of the provisions of clause (f) to Rule 14 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 ought to remain undisturbed. However, therein though both the authorities below have tenably concluded that even when respondents No.7 and 8 had unwarrantedly proceeded to cast their votes in elections to ward members respectively of Gram Panchayat Talkehar and of Gram Panchayat Passel yet therein theirs having also proceeded to conclude that hence while taking into account their votes in the tally of votes secured by the petitioner herein or there was reckoning by the Returning Officer of their votes polled in both the Gram Panchayats concerned in the tally of votes cast in favour of the petitioner hence the out come of the election was materially affected, cannot stand to be countenanced by this Court. The reason is that there was no material existing before the authorities below to conclude that both the respondents aforesaid had respectively cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein. The reason is that there was no material existing before the authorities below to conclude that both the respondents aforesaid had respectively cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein. For want of or lack of material existing before the authorities below for constraining a conclusion that the respondents aforesaid had while having untenably proceeded to cast their votes to the office of ward members respectively of Gram Panchayat Talkehar and of Gram Panchayat Passel had polled in favour of the petitioner herein, it was inapt besides legally improper for the authorities below to conclude that the respondents aforesaid had polled or cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein, nor a concomitant conclusion is drawable that the votes aforesaid were added in the tally of votes secured by the petitioner herein, besides hence it was not concludable then given the margin of victory of one vote of the petitioner over Roshan Lal, the fate of the election stood materially affected. Consequently, the renditions of both the authorities below suffer from thorough non application of mind. In sequel, both the Annexures P-1 and P-2 are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to decipher from the counter foils of the votes whether respondents No.7 and 8 polled in favour of the petitioner herein or not. In case such an endeavour on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 unearths the fact of both the respondents No.7 and 8 having polled in favour of the petitioner herein then respondents No.2 and 3 shall proceed to declare respondent No.5 herein to be elected. Such exercise shall be completed within two weeks from today. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Dasti copy.