JUDGMENT : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. 1. The question for resolution in this writ petition is whether a candidate has cast his vote for himself in the elections to the Chairman of a Standing Committee to a local authority. Seldom do we come across instances when uncertainty looms over the candidate’s own vote. This is such an occasion when the opposite candidate alleges that his opponent had not voted for himself. 2. Petitioner and the 6th respondent are Councillors of Cochin Corporation. Both of them are Standing Committee Members for Education and Sports (for short ‘the Standing Committee’). Election to the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee was scheduled to be held on 09.05.2023. Petitioner and 6th respondent were the nominated candidates of the UDF and the LDF, respectively, for the aforesaid election. As per Rule 11 of the the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules’) a member has to cast his vote by putting the alphabet ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate whom he intends to vote and thereafter must put a signature and write his name on the reverse side of the ballot paper. 3. At the election, one member abstained, and the balance was eight out of the nine members who were eligible to vote. During the counting of votes, the Returning Officer rejected the vote cast by one voter. Thus, the total number of votes counted was 7. The 6th respondent was declared as the elected candidate as he secured 4 votes. Petitioner contends that the 6th respondent had not cast his vote in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore, his vote ought to have been declared invalid. Though, according to the petitioner, objections were raised at the venue of the counting itself, the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the objection and declared the 6th respondent as duly elected. Subsequently, this writ petition has been preferred after obtaining copies of the ballot papers under the RTI Act. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent pointing out that the alphabet ‘X’ had been put against his own name in the ballot paper and that since there are no other marks, the vote should be treated as valid. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent pointing out that the alphabet ‘X’ had been put against his own name in the ballot paper and that since there are no other marks, the vote should be treated as valid. It was pleaded that there was only one ‘X’ mark on the ballot paper in dispute and that was in the column relating to the 6th respondent himself. 5. I have heard Sri. D. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Deepulal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Returning Officer and Sri. P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 6. The issue revolves around whether the 6th respondent had cast a valid vote as prescribed by the Rules. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to extract Rule 11 sub clauses (5) and (7) of the Rules, which read as follows: “11. Manner of Election of Chairman: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) Each member shall, immediately on receipt of the ballot paper, proceed to the place set apart for voting and vote putting the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he intends to vote and after putting his signature and writing his name on the reverse of the ballot paper, put it into the ballot box kept in a place visible to the returning officer xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (7) The ballot paper that does not contain the mark ‘X’ against the name of any of the candidates or that contains the mark ‘X’ against more than one name or that does not bear on the reverse, the name and signature of the member who marked the vote shall be rejected and the rejected ballot papers shall be kept in separate cover.” 7. The ballot paper has been produced as Exhibit P4. Pursuant to directions, the original ballot paper was produced by the learned Standing Counsel in a sealed cover. The ballot papers were perused by all the counsel as well as the Court and was returned to the Standing Counsel itself. 8. There were two candidates at the election for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, of which one was the petitioner and the other was the 6th respondent. The ballot papers were perused by all the counsel as well as the Court and was returned to the Standing Counsel itself. 8. There were two candidates at the election for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, of which one was the petitioner and the other was the 6th respondent. The ballot paper of the 6th respondent indicates that there are markings on the area for casting the vote against the petitioner’s column as well as that of the 6th respondent. It is evident from the naked eye itself that an ‘X’ was put against the petitioner’s name, which is seen scored off. Another mark is put against the name of the 6th respondent. The symbol of a stroke (/) and two lines connected to each other are drawn over and in the opposite direction of the stroke. A glance at the ballot paper reveals that it is possible to read the mark against the 6th respondent as scoring off of the stroke that was put initially, or it could be a drawing of two lines parallel to each other in the opposite direction of the stroke, both of which do not depict the alphabet ‘X’. The symbol as against the 6th respondent’s name is thus ambiguous. On verification of the ballot paper, it is evident that the mark ‘X’ was not put either against the petitioner or against the 6th respondent, though there are markings against both. 9. Even otherwise, Rule 11(7) of the Rules explicitly states that a vote can be cast only by writing the mark ‘X’. The symbol ‘X’ cannot be written by two lines scored against one. It should be one single line over another single line. Though the nature of the mark or alphabet is not deducible from the ballot paper, as long as the alphabet is not ‘X’, it cannot be held that the vote is validly cast. 10. In this context, it is relevant to note Rule 11(5) extracted earlier, which specifically mentions that on receipt of the ballot paper, the voter must proceed to the place set apart for voting and must cast his vote by putting the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he intends to vote. 10. In this context, it is relevant to note Rule 11(5) extracted earlier, which specifically mentions that on receipt of the ballot paper, the voter must proceed to the place set apart for voting and must cast his vote by putting the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he intends to vote. Again, Rule 11(7) stipulates that if the ballot paper does not contain the mark ‘X’ against the name of any candidate, the vote shall be rejected. The form prescribed for the ballot paper also stipulates that the mark ‘X’ must be put against the candidate’s name. Thus it leaves no room for doubt that in the absence of the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper, the vote has to be rejected. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Walter D. Paul vs. Ummer, 1990 KHC 118 had observed that if the voting paper contains a tick mark instead of an ‘X’ mark, it has to be rejected. Reference was made to the provisions then in force, which expressly spoke of the manner in which a voter has to cast his vote and provided that if the voting paper does not contain the mark ‘X’, it shall be treated as invalid. Referring to the provision, it was held that since there is an express stipulation which requires the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper and since the said rule is mandatory, any mark other than ‘X’, if used in the ballot paper, is liable to be rejected. 12. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan vs. Dominic, 1992 KHC 357 had distinguished the Division Bench judgment on the basis of the Rules in question in that case and stated that since the consequences of putting a different mark do not find a place in the said Rules, the intention of the voter having been manifested by the mark against the name of the petitioner therein, the vote cannot be invalidated. 13. In another decision in Mathai Yohannan vs. Mathew Joseph and Others, 1997 KHC 305, a learned Single Judge had observed that any mark or writing in the ballot paper would not invalidate the vote and when the intention of the voter is very clear that he exercises his preferences in favour of petitioner therein, the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid. 14. 14. It is relevant to observe at this juncture that the decision in Gopalakrishnan’s case (supra) and that in Mathai Yohanna’s case (supra) can be distinguished having regard to the facts involved therein and the statutory provisions in the present case. In the rules under consideration, the consequences of not putting the mark ‘X’ have been provided. In Gopalakrishnan’s case (supra), unlike the present case, there was no rule that mandated treating the ballot paper which does not contain the mark ‘X’ as invalid. 15. A voter’s intention is not what is expressed subsequent to the casting of the ballot. The intention has to be manifested through the ballot, in the manner provided, that too, at the time when he exercised his right of franchise. Subsequent assertions or expressions of the voter have no bearing on the intention. Further, when the nature of the mark appearing on the ballot paper can be interpreted or perceived differently by different persons, there arises a lack of clarity on the symbol. The ambiguity or uncertainty created by the ballot paper cannot be substituted by any subsequent affirmations. Even if the voter is the candidate himself, that is not a reason to assume that he had cast his vote in his favour, if the ballot paper does not expressly reflect or manifest such an intention. As mentioned earlier, the intention of the voter is to be deduced from the ballot paper and not by any antecedent or subsequent expressions. 16. The electorate for election to the Standing Committee is admittedly from amongst nine counsellors. Both the petitioner and the 6th respondent are informed voters, unlike those in a general election where there could be many illiterate voters. The limited number of the electorate coupled with the informed nature of those voters, impel this Court to hold that any mark other than ‘X’ with clarity and without any doubt or ambiguity alone can result in the casting of a valid vote as per Rule 11(7) of the Rules. 17. As held in the Division Bench judgment in Walter D Paul’s case (supra), since there is an express provision which requires the vote to be cast only by a mark ‘X’, no other symbol or alphabet can be accepted as a valid vote. 18. 17. As held in the Division Bench judgment in Walter D Paul’s case (supra), since there is an express provision which requires the vote to be cast only by a mark ‘X’, no other symbol or alphabet can be accepted as a valid vote. 18. The contention of the 6th respondent that in the objection filed before the Returning Officer immediately after the election, petitioner had no allegation that the mark is not ‘X’ and therefore he cannot now raise such an objection though impressive, is only to be negatived. It is true that in the objection filed immediately after the election, petitioner had not raised an objection that there is no mark as ‘X’ on the vote. Only in the writ petition had he raised such a contention. However, it is significant to note that there is no provision for raising any objection immediately after the election. The only mode of challenge available is through recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India or through a civil suit. The initial objection was filed immediately after the election, with little time to deliberate or verify. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of any objection raised immediately after the election, since petitioner has raised sufficient pleadings in this writ petition there is no merit in the said contention. 19. In view of the above discussion, the vote cast by the 6th respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P4 ballot paper, is invalid and liable to be rejected. Therefore it is declared that the vote cast by the 6th respondent for the election of the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Education and Sports of the Cochin Corporation in the elections held on 09.05.2023 is invalid and cannot be counted. The election of the 6th respondent as Chairman of the Standing Committee for Education and Sports of the Cochin Corporation is hereby set aside. The consequences as contemplated by law shall follow. 20. The writ petition is allowed.