JUDGMENT : 1. Present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated December 20, 2019 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Appellate Authority, Doda whereby in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 4, election of petitioner as Sarpanch of Panchayat Gundow-A has been set-aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the election was over and the votes were counted. The petitioner was declared as elected candidate having secured more votes than the respondent No. 4. The appeal was filed without any basis. In fact, none of the ingredients as laid down in Section 43 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') was made out requiring interference in the election. The comments from the Returning Officer were not called for to find out as to how the names of some of the voters were shown twice and the dead person had casted the vote. The petitioner is now working as Sarpanch for the last one year. In his absence the work of the panchayat will suffer. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Caveator submitted that the case set up by him before the appellate authority was fool-proof. There was difference of only one vote as the petitioner secured 161 votes, whereas he secured 160 votes. There was no other candidate close by. It was established that one of the five dead voters, who was shown in the voter list, had casted the vote. Three voters who had been entered in the voter list in two different wards at different serial numbers, had casted their votes at both the places. Vote of one person who was on election duty at far away place was also shown to be casted. So this made a total difference of five votes, which materially affected the result of the election. Even if, it may not be evident as to in whose favour these votes have been casted, Rule 17 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') has clearly been violated and the grounds for challenging election as contained in Section 43 of the Act are clearly made out. Even if, it may not be evident as to in whose favour these votes have been casted, Rule 17 of the J&K Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') has clearly been violated and the grounds for challenging election as contained in Section 43 of the Act are clearly made out. In the process of election, there was gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially Rule 17 of the Rules, which clearly provides that every voter shall cast his vote once and the vote shall not be casted by any proxy or by post. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. Vide impugned order dated December 20, 2019, election of the petitioner as Sarpanch has been set aside. The petitioner secured 161 votes as against the respondent No. 4 who secured 160 votes. Other candidates had secured votes far less. The result of the election was declared on 17.11.2018. The appeal was filed by the respondent No. 4 immediately thereafter on 19.11.2018. The findings recorded by the appellate authority read as under : “In view of the above facts/circumstances and discussions made herein above, the appellant has succeeded to prove that one of the five dead voters has casted the vote and three same voters were entered in the voter list at different wards and at different serial numbers within same Panchayat and have also casted the vote twice each. Vote of one person who was on election duty at far away place has been casted. Therefore, this court reached to the conclusion that a lot of malpractices/unfairness has taken place in the election process and all the illegality casted votes are hereby expunged and the election result of Panchayat Gundow-A of Block Jakyas, held on 17.11.2018 is declared as null and void. Stay, if any, issued by this court is hereby vacated. Let the file be consigned to records after its due completion.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid findings, the facts stated wherein as such could not be disputed, clearly shows that there were five dead voters in the voters list out of whom one is shown to have casted his vote. Three voters had been listed in the voters list in two different wards at different serial numbers within the same Panchayat and they had casted their votes twice. Three voters had been listed in the voters list in two different wards at different serial numbers within the same Panchayat and they had casted their votes twice. A voter who was on election duty at far away place is also shown to have casted his vote. Meaning thereby five votes were casted which could not otherwise be entertained. 7. Section 43 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules are extracted below : “43. Disputes regarding elections.- (1) The election of a person as Sarpanch, Panch of a Halqa Panchayat or as a [Chairperson] 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:- (a) 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; or (b) That the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder. 17. Right to vote.- (1) No person whose name is not entered in the Electoral Roll pertaining to the constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency. (2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is not qualified to vote under the provisions of the Act. (3) Every voter shall have only one vote. (4) Every vote shall be cast by the elector in person and not by proxy or by post.” 8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that none of the grounds as mentioned in Section 43 of the Act was made out for setting aside the election and further the comments from the Returning Officer were not taken. 9. A perusal of the provisions of the Section 43 of the Act clearly shows that one of the grounds, on which the election can be set aside is the gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 17 of the Rules clearly provides that every voter can cast his vote once and the vote has to be casted in person not by proxy or by post. 10. Rule 17 of the Rules clearly provides that every voter can cast his vote once and the vote has to be casted in person not by proxy or by post. 10. If the facts of the present case are examined, three voters, who were shown in voters list in two different wards in the same Panchayat constituency, had casted their votes twice and further one voter who was on election duty at a far away place has also been shown to have casted his vote. It is in complete violation of Rule 17 of the Rules. In addition to that, another glaring illegality in the election is that the voter who had already expired has been shown to have casted his vote. The difference of votes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 is merely of 'one' vote and there is illegality in casting five votes. In whose favour those votes had been casted cannot be said as the voting was secret but in any case that materially affects the process on which public faith and confidence has to be maintained. 11. There is nothing on which the comments of the Returning Officer were required to be called for in the facts and circumstance of the case. Once the facts as noticed above are clearly established, even his comments could not lend any support to the case of the petitioner. 12. For the reason mentioned above, I do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate authority. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. As the seat of the Sarpanch has now been vacated, the competent authority shall take appropriate steps for filling up the same expeditiously so that the work of the Panchayat does not suffer.