ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of Commissioner, Jabalpur passed in Case No.70/B-121/2012-13 decided on 18.2.2014. By this order, the election petition of the petitioner filed under section 66-A of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 was rejected by the learned Commissioner. 2. The petitioner and private respondents submitted their nomination for the post of 'vyapar pratinidhi'. As per the election result, petitioner secured 29 votes whereas respondent No.2 secured 31 votes and was declared as elected. The petitioner filed the election petition under section 66-A of the Adhiniyam of 1972 before the learned Commissioner. After inviting response of the other side, recording the evidence, the learned Commissioner rejected the election petition. 3. Criticizing the said order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the election the respondents published the voter list (Annexure-P/2). The voter list reflects that the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar were mentioned at two places. Alok Kumar, s/o Mahesh Kumar name is mentioned at serial Nos. 17 and 71, whereas name of Sushil Kumar, s/o Vitthaldas is repeated shown at serials No.34 and 35. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the findings given in para 22 of the impugned order dated 18.2.2014, it is clear that Alok Kumar had cast his vote twice. Accordingly, in view of this finding, it is clear that election was improperly conducted. Hence, learned Commissioner should have set aside the election. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 84-B of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan) Rules, 1997. He submits that Rule 84-B(2)(d)(iii) is attracted in the present case. In view of improper receipt of votes, the election must be declared as void. In support of findings at para 22 of the impugned order, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of Tehsildar/Assistant Returning Officer dated 11.1.2013 (Annexure-P/9). 4. Per-contra, Mr. Subodh Kather, learned G.A. and Mr. G.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned order. Mr. Baghel, by taking this Court to the averments of election petition contended that there is no pleading in the petition that the votes cast by Shri Alok Kumar at more than one occasion were cast in favour of respondent No.2. No amount of evidence was led by election petitioner in this regard. Mr. Baghel, by taking this Court to the averments of election petition contended that there is no pleading in the petition that the votes cast by Shri Alok Kumar at more than one occasion were cast in favour of respondent No.2. No amount of evidence was led by election petitioner in this regard. Shri Narayan Singh Patel PW2 entered the witness box who was polling agent of the petitioner. He admitted that he had not preferred any written objection or complaint against voting done by Shri Alok Kumar on more than one occasion. He further admitted that in such cases, written complaint should have been preferred. Mr. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on Rule 89 of the Rules of 1997 and contended that in a democracy, the secrecy of votes is of utmost importance. The votes are sacrosanct and same cannot be disclosed without any authority of law. Rule 89 makes it clear that while keeping the material in the custody of Election Officer, the same shall not be opened, inspected or produced by any authority except with the order of competent Court or authority. In absence of any such order by competent Court or authority, there was no occasion for the Returning Officer to inspect the record and prepare the report (AnnexureP/9). In nutshell, the stand of the respondents is that the necessary ingredients for attracting Rule 84-B of Rules of 1997 are not available in the present case. 5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in the light of stand taken by the parties. 7. No doubt the voter list contains the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar on more than one place. However, mere repetition of names of the voter will not invalid the election. Election can be declared void or invalid as per the test laid down in Rule 84-B of the Rules of 1997. 7. No doubt the voter list contains the names of Shri Alok Kumar and Shri Sushil Kumar on more than one place. However, mere repetition of names of the voter will not invalid the election. Election can be declared void or invalid as per the test laid down in Rule 84-B of the Rules of 1997. Rule 84-B reads as under: “84-B. Declaration of election as void : (1) If after such enquiry, as he considers necessary, the Divisional Commissioner or his sub-ordinate officer, as the case may be, is of the opinion that the election complained of has been procured or induced or the result of the election has been materially affected by any corrupt or illegal practice or noncompliance with any Rule, he may pass an order : (a) declaring the election of all or any of the elected candidates to be void; or (b) declaring the election of all or any of the elected candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidates to have been duly elected. In the event of the election set aside, the Collector shall take necessary steps for holding a fresh election. (2) Grounds for declaring election to be void : (a) that on the of his election, the elected candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns a elected candidate has been materially affected : (i) by improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the elected candidate by a person other than that candidate or his election agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or his election agent; or (iii) by the improper receipt, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rules or orders made thereunder. (3) For the purposes of this rule, the following shall be deemed to be corrupt and illegal practices : Bribery, undue influence and personation at election, as defined under sections 171(B), 171(C) and 171(D) of Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).]” [Emphasis Supplied] Rule 84-B, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that improper receipt of any vote can be a reason to declare the election as void only when such cast of vote has materially affected the election. The rule further provides that if result of election has been materially affected by any corrupt or illegal practice or by improper receipt of vote, the election may be declared as void. In the present case, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor proved before the learned Commissioner that those two votes of Alok Kumar were cast in favour of respondent No.2. In absence thereto, there was no material to show that said vote has materially affected the result of the election. The learned Commissioner has considered this aspect in extenso in para 22 of the impugned order. The learned Commissioner opined that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that Alok Kumar cast vote twice, it will not materially affect the election. There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding. 8. At the cost of repetition, in my view, the election of the candidates in a democratic set up cannot be cancelled on mere asking. Heavy burden lies on the shoulder of election petitioner who makes allegations against said election. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove that because of improper receipt of votes the result of election is materially affected. In absence thereto, no interference is warranted by this Court. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.