ORDER : C.S.SUDHA, J. The petition has been described as one filed under Sections 80, 80A and 81 read with Section 100(1)(d)(iii), Section 100(1)(d)(iv) and Section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the Act). 2. The election petitioner and the respondents on 06/04/2021 contested the general election to the 15th Kerala Legislative Assembly from 038-Perinthalmanna Assembly Constituency, the result of which was declared on 02/05/2021 and 03/05/2021. The first respondent was declared the returned candidate by a majority of 38 votes. The election of the first respondent and the result declared is challenged on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. The challenge is on the ground that 348 postal ballots of the Absentee Voters Senior Citizens (AVSC); Absentee Voters Physically Disabled (AVPD) and Absentee Voters Covid suspected and affected persons (AVCO) were improperly rejected, materially affecting the result of the election as far as the first respondent is concerned. 2.1. According to the petitioner, after the election, counting was conducted on 02/05/2021 at GGV HSS, Perinthalmanna. The postal ballots were counted before the Electronic Voting Machine (the EVM) votes were counted. Six tables were arranged for counting the postal ballots. PW8 to PW13, the counting agents of the election petitioner, were present at the tables. The election agent of the election petitioner, namely, PW4, was also present at the counting center and was supervising the functioning of the counting agents. During the course of counting, 348 postal ballots of AVSC, AVPD and AVCO were kept aside alleging that there were no proper attestation of Form 13A declaration by the polling officers concerned and that the serial number of the postal ballots in Form 13A declaration and Form 13B cover were defective. The counting agents of the election petitioner present at each table were unable to notice any defects in the Form 13A declaration or in the serial number of the ballots entered in Form 13A or Form 13B. The counting agents were not permitted to verify the Form 13A declarations or Form 13B covers. Though the counting agents objected to the keeping aside of the said postal ballots of AVSC, AVPD and AVCO and also sought to know the reasons for the same, the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer (RO/ARO) were in haste and without disclosing the reasons, kept them in a separate box. Though the counting agents objected to the keeping aside of the said postal ballots of AVSC, AVPD and AVCO and also sought to know the reasons for the same, the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer (RO/ARO) were in haste and without disclosing the reasons, kept them in a separate box. The counting agents were informed that their request would be considered after counting of all the votes including the votes cast through EVM was completed. The election agent submitted Ext.A3 request to the RO, namely, PW1, requesting him to consider the 348 postal ballots which had been kept aside. The RO gave Ext.A2 reply stating that 348 postal ballots were rejected for noncompliance of Rules 24 to 27 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (the Rules). The statement in Ext.A2 reply that before the declaration of results, the reasons for rejection had been re-verified in the presence of counting agents is false and incorrect. They were not verified or re-verified in the presence of the counting agents or the election agent of the petitioner. Neither the election agent nor the counting agents were ever informed about the re-verification of the 348 postal ballots or the reason(s) for their rejection. 2.2. Any defect(s) in the postal ballots of AVSC, AVPD and AVCO due to the action/inaction or violation of any statutory duties of the polling officers cannot be attributed to the voter and made a ground for rejection of the votes. Ext.A1 is the guidelines issued by the Election Commission (the EC) regarding the procedure to be followed in the casting of vote by the absentee voters. However, none of the voters had been briefed by the polling officers concerned about the procedure of voting or the formalities to be observed as provided in the guidelines. The polling officers were supposed to only brief the voters regarding the manner in which the vote had to be cast. In case the absentee voters found it difficult to complete the formalities by themselves, the assistance of a third person could be allowed. The polling officers instead of making the voter or the third person authorized to help the former complete the formalities, filled up the forms concerned themselves in total violation of clauses 5.4, 5.6 and 5.11 of Ext.A1 guidelines. The polling officers instead of making the voter or the third person authorized to help the former complete the formalities, filled up the forms concerned themselves in total violation of clauses 5.4, 5.6 and 5.11 of Ext.A1 guidelines. 348 postal ballots were rejected due to defects or faults committed by the polling officers concerned for which the voters cannot be held liable and so their rejection was improper. Rejection of these 348 postal ballots materially affected the result of the election of the returned candidate. Had the rejected 348 postal ballots been counted, the petitioner would have got the highest number of votes and would have been elected. As there has been an improper rejection of 348 postal ballots, the present petition seeking a declaration that the election of the first respondent as the returned candidate and the results declared on 02/05/2021 / 03/05/2021 is null and void and hence liable to be set aside. There is also a prayer to declare the election petitioner as the elected candidate/returned candidate. 3. The first respondent, the returned candidate, filed written statement denying the allegations in the election petition. According to him, counting of the postal ballots was done in six different counting tables. 500 to 600 votes were counted at each table. The counting agents of the election petitioner were actively taking part in the counting process. Each and every postal vote had been shown to the counting agents and it was after getting their approval, the rejected and invalid votes had been identified. At the time of counting, no objection(s) had been raised by any of the counting agents of the election petitioner with respect to any vote which had been declared invalid or rejected. After completion of the counting of postal ballots, Exts.R1 to R6 result sheets were prepared wherein details of the valid votes obtained by each of the candidates, the rejected votes and invalid votes were recorded. On being satisfied of the correctness of the result sheets, all the counting agents of the election petitioner affixed their signatures in the same, pursuant to which the AROs and the Micro Observer (the MO) also affixed their signatures. The counting agents of the election petitioner put their signatures in the result sheets admitting the correctness of the entries in the same. The counting agents of the election petitioner put their signatures in the result sheets admitting the correctness of the entries in the same. The allegation that 348 postal ballots of the absentee voters had been kept aside for want of proper attestation is incorrect. No postal ballot had been kept aside for a decision to be taken at a later point of time. Validity of all the postal ballots had been decided then and there, which was done to the satisfaction of the counting agents also. The postal ballots had been shown to the counting agents and it was only after getting their approval, the validity of the votes had been decided. The allegation that counting agents had not been permitted to verify the Form 13A declarations or 13B covers is incorrect and false. The allegation that the RO and the ARO were in a haste and without giving details, kept 348 postal ballots in a separate box is incorrect. The counting agents of the election petitioner had never raised any objection(s) during the course of counting. The allegation that the RO/ARO had informed the counting agents that the counting of 348 votes which had been kept aside would be considered after counting of all the votes is also incorrect. Ext.A3 request was made by PW4 after the completion of the counting process. When the entire counting was over, it was found that the difference was only 38 votes. As an afterthought, the election agent gave Ext.A3 request. Though it was unnecessary to conduct a re-verification of the rejected votes, the same was done by the RO based on Ext.A3 request. Ext.A2 is the reply given by the RO after re-verification of the rejected and invalid votes. Only the postal ballots which did not comply with the legal formalities were rejected. Reference to Rules 24 to 27 in Ext.A2 by the RO is of no consequence. The allegation that at the time of counting, no substantial defects had been noted in the 348 postal ballots that were rejected, is incorrect. The polling officers had complied with all the legal formalities before getting the vote cast by the absentee voters. The Form 13A declaration was to be filled up and signed by the voter. If the voter has committed any mistake(s), the polling officers cannot be blamed for the same. The polling officers had complied with all the legal formalities before getting the vote cast by the absentee voters. The Form 13A declaration was to be filled up and signed by the voter. If the voter has committed any mistake(s), the polling officers cannot be blamed for the same. If at all it is found that there was some omission(s) on the part of the polling officer, that cannot be a reason for treating any invalid vote as valid. The allegation that the polling officers themselves had undertaken the task of filling up the declaration is factually incorrect. Even assuming that the allegation against the polling officers is true, the same cannot be a reason for setting aside the election under Section 100 of the Act. Ext.A1 is only a guideline issued by the EC and violation of the provisions of the same would not amount to a ground for setting aside the election under Section 100 as violation of the clauses in Ext.A1 is not violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders. No ground(s) for setting aside the election is made out and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3.1. A separate written statement has been filed by respondents 5 and 7 supporting the stand of the first respondent. The other respondents are ex parte. 4. The points that arise for consideration in this petition are - (i) Whether the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act ? (ii) Was there any non-compliance of the provisions of any Order of the EC made under the Act as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act ? (iii) Does Ext.A1 have the status of an order issued by the EC as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act ? (iv) Was there any improper rejection of 348 postal ballots causing the result of the election to be materially affected ? If so, is the petitioner entitled to the relief of setting aside the election as prayed for ? 5. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides in the case. PW1 to PW35 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20, and Exts.X1 to X363 were marked on the side of the petitioner. If so, is the petitioner entitled to the relief of setting aside the election as prayed for ? 5. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides in the case. PW1 to PW35 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20, and Exts.X1 to X363 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RW1 to RW6 were examined and Exts.R1 to R6 and Ext.X364 were marked on the side of the first respondent. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by respondents 5 and 7. 5.1. PW1 is the Returning Officer through whom Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.X1 to X347 were marked. Ext.A1 issued by the Election Commission is described as “Guidelines for Voting through postal ballot by Absentee Voters in the category of Senior Citizens, PWDs and Covid-19 suspect or affected persons”; Ext.A2 is the reply given by PW1 to Ext.A3 request of PW4 for re-counting; Ext.A4 is the order appointing the Special Polling Officers; Ext.A5 is the order appointing the counting agents of the petitioner and Ext.A6 is the list prepared by PW1 relating to absentee voters. Exts.X1 to X347 are Form 13C covers. Exts.X1(a) to X19(a); Exts.X22(a) to X23(a); Exts.X25(a) to X98(a); Exts.X101(a) to X102(a); Exts.X103(a) to X121(a); Exts.X125(a) to X154(a); Exts.X155(a) to X218(a); Exts.X220(a) to X229(a); Ext.X231(a); Exts.X232(a) to X304(a); Ext.X306(a); Ext.X307(a); Exts.X309(a) to X321(a) and Exts.X322(a) to X338(a) are Form 13A declarations and Exts.X1(b) to X19(b); Exts.X22(b) to X23(b); Exts.X25(b) to X98(b); Exts.X101(b) to X102(b); Exts.103(b) to X121(b); Exts.X125(b) to X154(b); Exts.X155(b) to X218(b); Exts.X220(b) to X229(b); Ext.X231(b); Exts.X232(b) to X304(b); Ext.X306(b); Ext.X307(b); Exts.X309(b) to X321(b) and Exts.322(b) to X338(b) and Exts.X20(a), X21(a), X24(a), X99(a), X100(a), X122(a), X123(a), X124(a), X219(a), X230(a), X305(a), X308(a), X339(a) to X347(a) are Form 13B covers. 5.2. Exts.R1 to R6 are the result sheets showing the details of the postal ballots counted at the six tables, also proved through PW1. 5.3. Ext.X348, the marked electoral roll with serial number starting from 1 to 1466; Ext.X.348(a), the list of deceased voters in booth no.1 and Ext.348(b), the list of multiple entries in booth no.1 were marked through PW2, the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna. Ext.C1 is a report dated 17/01/2023 filed by PW2 regarding the misplacement of certain polling materials. 5.4. The election petitioner was examined as PW3 and Exts.A7 to A20 were marked. Ext.C1 is a report dated 17/01/2023 filed by PW2 regarding the misplacement of certain polling materials. 5.4. The election petitioner was examined as PW3 and Exts.A7 to A20 were marked. The election agent of the petitioner was examined as PW4 and his counting agents were examined as PW8 to PW13. The Special Polling Officers (the SPOs) were examined as PW5 to PW7 and PW14 to PW35. 5.5. The AROs deputed at the six counting tables were examined as RW1 to RW6. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Point no.(ii) and (iii): Before going into the controversy and evidence relied on by either side, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules required to decide the points in controversy. Section 100 (1) (d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act, the violation of which are alleged, reads thus - “100. Grounds for declaring election to be void (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) by the improper reception, 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 Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.” 7.1. Section 60 of the Act deals with the special procedure for voting by certain classes of persons. Clause (c) of the Section says that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Section 59, provision may be made, by rules made under this Act, for enabling any person belonging to a class of persons notified by the EC in consultation with the Government to give his vote by postal ballot and not in any other manner, at an election in a constituency where a poll is taken subject to the fulfilment of such requirements as may be specified in the rules. By virtue of Section 60(c), the Rules was amended. Rule 18 deals with persons entitled to vote by post. By virtue of Section 60(c), the Rules was amended. Rule 18 deals with persons entitled to vote by post. Rule 18(a)(v) introduced by the Conduct of Elections (Amendment) Rules, 2019, says that persons notified under clause (c) of Section 60 including absentee voters shall, subject to their fulfilling the requirements specified in the Rules, be entitled to vote by post. Rule 27 A(aa) in Part IIIA of the Rules defines absentee voter as a person belonging to such class of persons as may be notified, under clause(c) of section 60 of the Act, and who is employed in essential services as mentioned in the said notification, and includes an elector belonging to the class of senior citizen or persons with disability or the COVID-19 suspect or affected persons. 7.2. The procedure to be followed when an absentee voter wishes to vote by post is contained in the second proviso to Rule 27C. The proviso says that in case of an absentee voter, an application shall be made in Form 12D, which shall contain such particulars as specified therein, and shall be duly verified by the Nodal Officer for the absentee voter, other than senior citizen or persons with disability, which shall reach the RO within five days following the date of notification of election. The third proviso says that an application in Form 12C or 12D without a certificate from the authorised officer or nodal officer as required under Part II of Form 12C or 12D shall be rejected. 7.3. Rule 27E deals with issue of ballot paper. The second proviso to the Rule dealing with the absentee voter says that the postal ballot paper shall be issued in such manner as may be specified by the EC. Rule 27F deals with the procedure for recording of vote. Sub-rule (3) says that in the case of an absentee voter, the recording of vote shall be made in such centre as may be specified by the EC. The proviso says that in the case of absentee voter in the class of senior citizen or persons with disability, the attestation of declaration in Form 13A shall be done by the poll officer. Rule 27-I deals with return of ballot paper. The proviso says that in the case of absentee voter in the class of senior citizen or persons with disability, the attestation of declaration in Form 13A shall be done by the poll officer. Rule 27-I deals with return of ballot paper. The proviso to sub-rule (1) says that in the case of absentee voter, postal ballot paper shall be returned to the centre provided for recording of vote under sub-rule(3) of rule 27F, subject to any direction that may be issued by the EC in this behalf. 8. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the election petitioner that the aforesaid Rules are silent regarding the procedure to be followed by the polling officers in the case of absentee voters. Hence by virtue of the proviso to Rule 27E, Rule 27F(3) and Rule 27-I, the EC issued Ext.A1 guidelines, which has been issued in exercise of the power vested in the EC under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. PWs 5 to 7 and PWs 14 to 35 were bound to follow the directions in Ext.A1. However, there has been non-compliance/violation of clauses 5.10 and 5.11 by them, attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. In support of this argument, reference has been made to the dictums in Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 and Haru Adhikari v. State of Kerala, 2009 KHC 591 and also the order of this Court dated 11/11/2022 in I.A.No.2/2021 in which it has been held that Ext.A1 is akin to the Rules notified by the EC under Article 324. 9. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent that Ext.A1, a mere guideline issued by the EC has no force of any law or rule. It is neither a subordinate nor delegated piece of legislation. Even assuming that there is violation of any mandatory clause in Ext.A1, the same would not amount to violation/non-compliance of an order as contemplated under Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the Act, calling for a relief of setting aside of the election. It was also pointed out that any order passed by the EC in exercise of its powers under Article 324 is required to be notified, which is not the case with Ext.A1. It was also pointed out that any order passed by the EC in exercise of its powers under Article 324 is required to be notified, which is not the case with Ext.A1. Instances pointed out are the following orders – 'Officer before whom a candidate for election to fill a seat in the Metropolitan Council of Delhi shall make and subscribe oath or affirmation'; the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Orders, 1968; the delimitation of Council of Constituencies (Karnataka) order, 1951; the delimitation Council Constituencies (Uttar Pradesh) order, 1951; the delimitation of Council Constituencies (Andra Pradesh) Order, 2006' etc. The said orders have been notified. Ext.A1 apparently has not been notified and hence not an order as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. It was also submitted relying on the dictum in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 2032 that it is essential that what is claimed to be a law must be notified or made public in order to bind the citizen. Reference was also made to the dictum in A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, AIR 1984 SC 921 . 9.1. In Gulf Goans (Supra) it has been held that it is essential that what is claimed to be a law must be notified or made public in order to bind the citizen. Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is, or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. So far as publication is concerned, it was held that such mode must be prescribed by the statute. In the event the statute does not contain any prescription and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence in the matter, the legislation will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognized official channel, namely, the official gazette. 9.2. In A.C.Jose (Supra) it was held that a perusal of Article 324 to 329 of the Constitution would reveal that legislative powers in respect of matters relating to Parliament or State Legislatures vest in Parliament and in no other body. 9.2. In A.C.Jose (Supra) it was held that a perusal of Article 324 to 329 of the Constitution would reveal that legislative powers in respect of matters relating to Parliament or State Legislatures vest in Parliament and in no other body. The EC would come into the picture only if no provision has been made by Parliament in regard to the elections. Furthermore, the power under Article 324 relating to superintendence, direction and control was actually vesting of merely all the executive powers and that the legislative power of Parliament or of the legislation of a State being made subject to Article 324 only means that no law made by Parliament under Article 327 or by a State legislation under Article 328 can take away or deprive the EC of the executive power in regard to matters entrusted to it. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid dictums, the argument is that Ext.A1 is only an executive order issued by the EC and it does not have the force of a statute nor is it an 'order' as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 10. As per Article 324 of the Constitution, the superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in the EC. Clause (1) says that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under the Constitution shall be vested in the EC. The Apex Court in Mohindhr Singh Gill (Supra) held that Article 324 is a plenary provision vesting the whole responsibility for national and State elections in the EC and therefore, has the necessary powers to discharge that function. There may arise situations relating to which the enacted law has not provided for. Article 324 takes care of such surprise situations and it operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation. Article 324 enables the EC to act even in the absence of a specific legislation though not contrary to valid legislation. Article 324 is wide enough to supplement the powers under the Act, but subject to the condition that the power shall not be exercised mindlessly nor malafide, not arbitrarily nor with partiality but in keeping with the guidelines of the rule of law and not against the existing legislation. 10.1. Article 324 is wide enough to supplement the powers under the Act, but subject to the condition that the power shall not be exercised mindlessly nor malafide, not arbitrarily nor with partiality but in keeping with the guidelines of the rule of law and not against the existing legislation. 10.1. Therefore, by virtue of Article 324, for the smooth conduct of the election, the EC does have the power to issue orders in areas where the Rules are silent or left unoccupied by legislation. The only limitation laid on its plenary character are- (i) when Parliament or any State legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the EC shall act in conformity with and not in violation of such provision, but where such law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition; (ii) the EC shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bonafide and be amenable to the norms of natural justice in so far as conformance to such canons can reasonably and realistically be required of it as fair-play-in-action in a most important area of the constitutional order, namely, elections (Mohindhr Singh Gill) (Supra). 10.2. The question now is, whether Ext.A1 is one such order having the force of an 'order' as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in reply to the argument of the first respondent that Ext.A1 is a mere guideline and not an order, relied on the dictum in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal, AIR 2010 SC 1227 . In the said case the allegation of the election petitioner therein relying on a Handbook issued by the EC for the guidance of the ROs in the conduct of elections, was that the instructions so issued were binding on the ROs and therefore having obtained the specimen signature of the election petitioner and his election agent, it was obligatory on the part of the RO to circulate the specimen signatures to all the Presiding Officers in the prescribed proforma in terms of paragraph 12 of Chapter VII of the handbook. It was contended that the omission on the part of the RO had materially affected the election results. It was contended that the omission on the part of the RO had materially affected the election results. The Apex Court has held that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that instructions contained in the Handbook for the ROs are issued by the EC in exercise of its statutory functions and are, therefore, binding on the ROs, who are obliged to follow them in letter and spirit. But the allegation that the violation had materially affected the result of the election was rejected. In reply to the argument that all orders passed by the EC requires to be notified, it was submitted that no such procedure is contemplated under the Act or Rules and therefore the same is unnecessary. 10.3. An 'order' has not been defined in the Act or the Rules. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act reads:- “(3) Any requirement under this Act that a notification, order, rule, declaration, notice or list issued or made by any authority shall be published in the Official Gazette, shall, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be construed as a requirement that the notification, order, rule, declaration, notice or list shall— (a) where it is issued or made by the Central Government, be published in the Gazette of India; (b) where it is issued or made by a State Government, be published in the Official Gazette of the State; and (c) where it is issued or made by any other authority, be published in the Gazette of India if it relates to an election to, or membership of, either House of Parliament and in the Official Gazette of the State if it relates to an election to, or membership of, the House or either House of the Legislature of a State.” 10.4. Rule 2(3) of the Rules read- “(3) Any requirement under these rules that a notification, order, declaration, notice or list issued or made by any authority shall be published in the Official Gazette shall, unless otherwise expressly provided in these rules, be construed as a requirement that it shall be published in the Gazette of India if it relates to an election to, or membership of, either House of Parliament or an electoral college, and in the Official Gazette of the State, if it relates to an election to, or membership of, the House or either House of the State Legislature.” 11. The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 cited by the respondent has been made by the EC in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 324 read with Section 29A of the Act and Rules 5 and10. Rule 5 deals with symbols for election in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies. Sub-rule(1) says that the EC shall by notification in the Gazette of India and in the official Gazette of each State, specify the symbols that may be chosen by the candidates at the election. Therefore, Rule 5 specifies a particular mode by which the EC has to pass orders relating to matters dealt with therein. Similar provisions were pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Section 60 (c); Section 12A; Section 14; Section 15(2); Section 15A; Section 16; Section 30; Section 157; Section 39; Section 71; Section 157(2); Section 74; Rules 15; 18(a)(n) ; 24(2) etc. A similar provision is not seen in the relevant provisions applicable to the case on hand, that is, – (a) the first proviso to Rule 27E; (b) sub-rule (3) of Rule 27F and (c) the first proviso to sub-rule (1) to Rule 27I . The term used in (a) and (b) is “as may be specified by the Election Commission” and in (c) the term used is “that may be issued by the Election Commission in this behalf”. They do not say that it requires to be notified. Furthermore, the dictums in Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, 2014 KHC 4071 and Lakshmi v. Secretary to Govt., Public (Law and Order), Department, Secretariat, Chennai, 2014 KHC 4374 have also come to my notice wherein the Apex Court has held that the instructions contained in the handbook for the ROs issued by the EC is in exercise of its statutory functions and therefore binding on the ROs (See also Ram Sukh) (Supra). 12. Applying the aforesaid dictums, it can only be held that Ext.A1 guidelines issued by the EC was in exercise of its statutory functions and binding on the officers concerned. Nobody has a case that Ext.A1 is against any provision(s) of the existing legislation or rules or that the EC had exceeded its jurisdiction. 12. Applying the aforesaid dictums, it can only be held that Ext.A1 guidelines issued by the EC was in exercise of its statutory functions and binding on the officers concerned. Nobody has a case that Ext.A1 is against any provision(s) of the existing legislation or rules or that the EC had exceeded its jurisdiction. Ext.A1 guidelines was inter alia challenged before the High Court of Madras in DMK v. Union of India, AIR 2021 Madras 153: 2021 KHC 3724 alleging that the same had been issued by the EC exceeding its jurisdiction. The guidelines were upheld and held to be binding on the officers concerned. 13. Moreover, this Court in order dated 11/11/2022 in I.A.No.2/2021 has held that Ext.A1 is akin to the orders issued by the Election Commissioner under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). This order though challenged by the first respondent before the Apex Court, was not reversed or set aside. The first respondent has only been given the liberty to raise all his contentions at the time of trial and final hearing. I do not find any reason(s) to differ from the order dated 11/11/2022 in I.A.No.2/2021. Therefore, I find that Ext.A1 is infact an order issued by the EC under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, which the Polling officers were bound to comply with. 14. Now coming to the question whether any of the clause(s) in Ext.A1 have been violated attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. Clause 2 of Ext.A1 describes the procedure to be followed by an absentee voter wishing to vote by postal ballot. Clause 5 deals with visits by polling officers, briefing of electors and collection of marked ballot papers. Clauses 5.1 to 5.9 reads- “(5.1) Separate teams of poll officers, comprising two officials out of which at least one should be not below the rank/level of the official appointed as polling officer for Polling Station in the State, should be appointed for the purpose. (5.2) Number of teams of Polling Officials to be appointed would depend on the number of Absentee Voters to whom postal ballot papers have been issued. (5.3) The team of polling officials shall visit the electors at the address mentioned in their application in Form 12D for facilitating their voting by postal ballot paper. (5.4) The electors will be intimated, in advance, about the date and approximate time of visit of poll officials. (5.3) The team of polling officials shall visit the electors at the address mentioned in their application in Form 12D for facilitating their voting by postal ballot paper. (5.4) The electors will be intimated, in advance, about the date and approximate time of visit of poll officials. Such intimation may be given through SMS on the mobile phone number wherever the same has been mentioned in the application in Form-12D. In other cases, the intimation may be given by post and/or through the BLO (5.5) If the elector is not present at the given address at the first visit, the team shall pay a second visit after leaving intimation about the time of second visit. If the elector is not present even at the second visit, no further visit or action is required in his/her case. (5.6) The candidates shall be informed about the schedule of visit for the delivery and collection of postal ballots for this category. They may, if desired, depute their authorized representatives (including BLAs), with prior intimation to the Returning Officer, to watch the process. (5.7) The list of AVSCs, AVPDs and AVCOs shall be divided for distribution among the different teams of Polling Officials in such manner that each team gets a list of persons in geographically compact area. (5.8) The visiting polling official shall ascertain the identity of the elector before issuing postal ballot paper. (5.9) Name of elector and the document produced for identification shall also be entered in a register (annexed as annexure-2) to be maintained for the purpose, and signature/thumb impression of the elector obtained therein. Further, a tick mark shall be placed against the name of the elector in the list of AVSC, AVPD and AVCO to indicate that the person has voted. The counterfoil with the serial number and part number of elector duly filled up shall be got detached and kept in safe custody by the team.” 14.1. According to the petitioner, clauses 5.10 and 5.11 have been violated by PW5 to PW7 and PW14 to PW35, the SPOs who were deputed to visit the residence of the voters and collect the votes. According to the petitioner, clauses 5.10 and 5.11 have been violated by PW5 to PW7 and PW14 to PW35, the SPOs who were deputed to visit the residence of the voters and collect the votes. The said clauses read - “(5.10) It shall be the responsibility of each team of polling officials to (a) issue postal ballot to each of the Absentee Voters assigned to it, (b) brief the elector about the procedure to be followed for voting through postal ballot, (c) make sure that the elector votes without anyone influencing his/her choice, and ensuring the secrecy of voting, all activities at the address of the elector concerned. However, if any elector is not able to cast vote by himself due to blindness or physical infirmity, he/she shall be allowed to take the assistance of any adult person for casting vote. (5.11) While briefing the electors about the procedure of voting and formalities to be observed on their part, the polling official shall clearly explain the following points to them:- (a) making the declaration in Form 13A and getting it attested by the poll officer himself, (b) entering the serial number of postal ballot paper, both on Form 13A and on the smaller envelope (Form 13B). (c) manner of marking vote, ie by placing either cross mark or tick mark against the name of the candidate of choice. (d) folding and placing the marked ballot in the smaller envelope and closing the envelope. (e) Placing the declaration in Form 13A, duly filled up, signed and attested along with closed envelope (Form 13B) containing the marked ballot paper inside the larger envelope (Form 13C). (f) Closing the larger envelope and handing over the same to the poll officer.” 14.2. Referring to the aforesaid clauses, it was submitted that PWs.5 to 7 and PWs.14 to 35 had only the duty to brief or instruct the voters about the procedure to be followed for voting through postal ballot. The polling officials were duty bound only to explain the points in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Clause 5.11 to the voters and they had no duty to do that by themselves. In case of a voter unable to cast vote by himself due to blindness or any physical infirmity, the voter could be allowed to take the assistance of any adult person of his choice for casting the vote. In case of a voter unable to cast vote by himself due to blindness or any physical infirmity, the voter could be allowed to take the assistance of any adult person of his choice for casting the vote. Reference was also made to Rule 25 which says that if an elector is unable due to illiteracy, blindness or other physical infirmity to record his vote on a postal ballot paper and sign the declaration, he shall take the ballot paper, together with the declaration and the covers received by him to an officer competent to attest his signature under sub-rule (2) of rule 24 and request the officer to record his vote and sign his declaration on his behalf and that such officer shall thereupon mark the ballot paper in accordance with the wishes of the elector in his presence, sign the declaration on his behalf and complete the appropriate certificate contained in Form 13A. In such cases, it is the second page of Form 13A that was required to be filled up by the SPOs. However, the votes in cases were the 2nd page of Form 13A had been filled up, have also been rejected. Even in such instances, the polling officers are not to do the activities referred to sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause 5.11, but allow the adult person of the choice of the voter to do the same. Instead of adopting such a course, the polling officials themselves filled up the Form 13A declarations; entered the serial number of the postal ballot in Form 13A and Form 13B; folded and placed the ballot paper in Form 13B cover; enclosed the same as well as the filled up Form 13A declarations along with Form 13B cover inside Form 13C cover and sealed it. This is clear violation of clauses 5.10 and 5.11 of Ext.A1. Reference was also made to the testimony of PW1, the RO who deposed that in the training session she had instructed the polling officials to do the aforesaid activities on behalf of the absentee voters. Therefore it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the direction given by PW1 itself was against the directions in Ext.A1 and hence a clear case of violation/non-compliance of Ext.A1, an order of the EC, attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 14.3. Therefore it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the direction given by PW1 itself was against the directions in Ext.A1 and hence a clear case of violation/non-compliance of Ext.A1, an order of the EC, attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. 14.3. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner has no case in the election petition that PW1 had given any instruction(s) against Ext.A1 guidelines to the polling officers and hence no amount of evidence can be looked into regarding a plea that has never been put forward. 15. The election petitioner has raised two grounds in the petition, that is, (i) that though Form 13A declaration forms and other connected papers had no substantial defects, 348 postal ballots were kept aside and rejected as invalid for reasons not disclosed by the ARO to the counting agents or the election agent of the first respondent ; and (ii) that the defects in the declaration forms and other connected papers if any, had occurred due to omissions on the part of the SPOs who were bound to discharge their duties in accordance with Ext.A1 guidelines. It is also alleged that for the fault or omissions of the Polling officers if any, the postal ballots could not have been rejected as the voters cannot be mulcted with the said responsibility or liability. The statement made by PW1 during the course of her examination could not have been stated in the petition because that was something which came out during her examination. The instructions given by PW1 to the polling officials in the training session would not be known to the candidates or their agents and hence the election petitioner could not be expected to include the direction(s) given by PW1 in the election petition. 15.1. It is true that material has come on record through the testimony of PWs.5 to 7 and PWs 14 to 35, the SPOs, that as most of the absentee voters were either illiterate, infirm or laid up, they had filled up Form 13A declaration and the activities mentioned in (b) ; (d) ; (e) and (f) of Clause 5.11 of Ext.A1. In Naunihal Singh v. Kishorilal Paliwal, AIR 1961 MP 84 relied on by the respondent the meaning of the term 'non-compliance' as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act was considered and it was held that it denotes an omission to do what is directed to be done and not doing of an act which is prohibited. Relying on the aforesaid dictum it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that there has been no non- compliance of any of the provisions of Ext.A1 even assuming for argument sake that it is an order. 15.2. Neither Clause 5.11 nor the other clauses in Ext.A1 prohibit the SPOs from doing the aforesaid activities. No evidence has come on record to show that the SPOs had undertaken the aforesaid tasks against the wish of the voter(s) or disallowed a person of the choice of the voter to carry out the aforesaid tasks. Ext.A1 does not also say that the SPOs were to do the aforesaid tasks or to refrain from doing the same. Nobody has a case that secrecy of voting as provided under Clause 5.10 of Ext.A1 had been violated or that there has been non-compliance of the same. Therefore, neither has there been an omission nor an act(s) done by PWs.5 to 7 and PWs.14 to 35 which was prohibited in Ext.A1. Hence, I find that there has been no non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Ext.A1 attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. Points answered accordingly. 16. Point nos. (i) and (iv):- Now coming to the allegation that there has been improper rejection of votes attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. Admittedly, 348 postal ballots were rejected. Points answered accordingly. 16. Point nos. (i) and (iv):- Now coming to the allegation that there has been improper rejection of votes attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. Admittedly, 348 postal ballots were rejected. From the materials on record it has come out that 21 votes were rejected as no declaration was found; 11 votes were rejected as the declaration was found to be not duly signed and attested; 79 votes were rejected as there was no serial number of the postal ballot in Form 13A declaration or Form 13 B cover ; One vote was rejected as the signature of the voter was absent; 140 votes were rejected as the serial number of the ballot paper entered in Form 13A differed from the serial number entered in Form 13B cover; 16 votes were rejected as page 2 of Form 13A declaration had been filled up and 16 were rejected as Form 13B cover had not been sealed. A table showing the details of the number of votes rejected and the reasons for rejection have been given at the end of this judgment. 17. As noticed earlier PW5 to PW7 and PW14 to PW35 admit that it was they who had done the tasks mentioned in (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Clause 5.11 in Ext.A1. Therefore, it is clear from their testimony that it was not the voter or a third person of the choice of the voter who had filled up the forms concerned and that the mistakes in the said documents happened as a result of the mistake/omission of the polling officers concerned. According to the petitioner, for the mistakes committed by the SPOs, the voter cannot be held responsible or the votes rejected. In support of this argument, reference was made to the dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal, (2003) 6 SCC 452 . 17.1. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the first respondent relying on the decision in B.N.Krishna Murthy v. R.Subbanna, AIR 1957 Mysore 76 that the Act does not differentiate between a mistake committed by the voter and a mistake by the Polling Officer and if any vote as contemplated under the Act or Rules is found to be void/invalid, the RO has no other option but to reject the same. A vote which the RO has mandatorily to reject as a void vote cannot be treated a valid vote by this Court, goes the argument. 18. Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra), was a case wherein 824 votes were rejected by reference to Rule 56(2) and excluded from counting for the reason that they did not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer, nor were they stamped with any distinguishing mark. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 38, every ballot paper before it is issued to an elector, and the counterfoil attached thereto shall be stamped on the back with such distinguishing mark as the EC may direct, and every ballot paper, before it is issued, shall be signed in full on its back by the Presiding Officer. Rule 56 deals with counting of votes. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 states that the Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper in any of the contingencies mentioned in Clauses (a) to Clause (h) of the Rule. Clause (h) says that the Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper if it does not bear both the mark and the signature which it should have borne under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 38. However, the first proviso to Rule 56 says that where the Returning Officer is satisfied that any defect as mentioned in clause (g) or clause (h) has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of a Presiding Officer or polling officer, the ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground of such defect. The second proviso says that a ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once, if the intention that the vote shall be for a particular candidate clearly appears from the way the paper is marked. The Apex Court held that a bare reading of the Rules would show that an obligation is cast on the Polling Officer to stamp with such distinguishing mark as the EC may direct and to sign in full on the back of the ballot papers. The candidate has no role to play in the performance of such duty by the polling officer. Absence of mark and the signature renders the ballot paper liable to be rejected. The candidate has no role to play in the performance of such duty by the polling officer. Absence of mark and the signature renders the ballot paper liable to be rejected. However, still, where the RO feels satisfied that such defect has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of the Presiding Officer or polling officer, the ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground of such defect. Every voter has the right to vote and in the democratic set-up prevailing in the country no person entitled to the said right can be denied the privilege, nor can the candidate be made to suffer. As the RO had clearly failed in discharging his obligation cast by the first proviso to clauses (g) and (h) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 56, it was held that the 824 ballot papers which had been rejected should have been included for the purpose of counting. 18.1. Relying on the aforesaid dictum it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that for the mistakes and the defects committed by the Polling Officers, the liability cannot be mulcted on the voters and therefore the 348 postal ballots which were rejected due to the omissions/mistakes committed by the Polling Officers are liable to be taken into consideration and counted. 18.2. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Apex Court in M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy, (2004) 6 SCC 341 , has found the dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) per incuriam. He also relied on the dictum in B.N.Krishna Murthy v. R.Subbanna, AIR 1957 Karnataka 76. The entire dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) has not been held to be per incuriam in M. Chinnasamy (Supra) which is clear from paragraph 42 of the said judgment. He also relied on the dictum in B.N.Krishna Murthy v. R.Subbanna, AIR 1957 Karnataka 76. The entire dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) has not been held to be per incuriam in M. Chinnasamy (Supra) which is clear from paragraph 42 of the said judgment. In B.N.Krishna Murthy (Supra), the election was challenged on two grounds – (i) that the RO had erred in ruling out 61 votes on the ground that the signatures of the voters' were not duly attested as the attestor was not a gazetted officer of the Mysore Government or the Central Government as required by law and (ii) that as the numbers entered on the several envelopes in which the ballot papers were placed did not agree with the numbers of the respective ballot papers as required by Rule 92(2) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, all the votes were invalid. It was urged that the mistake, if any, in the numbers on the ballot papers not agreeing with the numbers on the respective envelopes was caused by the RO himself, and that Rule 92(2) does not apply to such a case. It was not disputed that the numbers borne on the ballot papers had not been entered on the respective envelopes and that the serial numbers of the voters in the voters' list were entered on the envelopes. It was held that there was nothing in the language of Rule 92(2) to differentiate between a mistake committed by the RO and that committed by a voter. The High Court relying on the dictum in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 : AIR 1955 SC 233 held that the expression ' the result of the election' in Section 100 (1)(c) and Section 100 (2)(c) must, unless there is something in the context of its interpretation, be construed in the same sense as in Section 66, that is, on the basis of the valid votes. When the provision itself renders the vote invalid such a vote cannot be taken cognizance of and no question of gathering the intention of the voter can arise. There could be no degree of compliance so far as rejection is concerned and it is conclusive to show that the provision is mandatory. 19. When the provision itself renders the vote invalid such a vote cannot be taken cognizance of and no question of gathering the intention of the voter can arise. There could be no degree of compliance so far as rejection is concerned and it is conclusive to show that the provision is mandatory. 19. Relying on the aforesaid dictum it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent that as per Rule 54A (4), the RO had no option but to reject the 348 votes for the defects stated therein and so rejected the same. Therefore, a vote which has been rejected as void by the RO cannot be declared valid by this Court. It was also submitted that the dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) relied on by the election petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand as the said decision specifically relates to Rule 56(2). A proviso like the first proviso to Rule 56(1) is not available in sub-rule (4) to Rule 54A and therefore the said decision cannot be applied, goes the argument. 20. Before I go any further, it needs to be decided which provisions of the Act and Rules deal with the counting of votes of absentee voters of the three categories of voters, viz, AVSC, AVPD and AVCO involved in this case as well as the ground(s) on which their votes can be rejected. Going by the pleadings in the E.P., neither Part III nor Part IIIA of the Rules is applicable. According to the petitioner, in exercise of the powers under the second proviso to Rule 27E(1) of the Rules, the EC had issued Exts.A1 and A13 guidelines which alone are applicable to absentee voters. But Ext.A1 does not provide for the procedure to be followed for counting of votes polled by the absentee voters in the aforesaid 3 categories. If at all any provision of Part IIIA is applicable, at best the proviso to Rule 27F(3) alone is applicable along with Ext.A1. By virtue of Rule 27F(3), any defect in attestation in Form 13A declaration and Form 13B cover can never be attributed to the absentee voter. If at all any provision of Part IIIA is applicable, at best the proviso to Rule 27F(3) alone is applicable along with Ext.A1. By virtue of Rule 27F(3), any defect in attestation in Form 13A declaration and Form 13B cover can never be attributed to the absentee voter. It was the bounden duty of the Poll Officers present at the time of delivery of Form 13A, Form 13B and Form 13C cover to instruct the absentee voters to mark the postal ballots and to fill up all other Forms without any defects, in which duty they have failed (See paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the EP). 20.1. It is further alleged in the petition that Rule 54A is applicable to votes received by post. The 348 postal ballots rejected by the RO were not transmitted through post, but directly collected by the poll officers concerned after getting the votes cast by the respective electors. Therefore, Rule 54A cannot be made applicable to such postal ballots delivered by the polling officers in accordance with Ext.A1 guideline. There is no specific provision for rejection of such postal ballots of absentee voters in the aforesaid 3 categories. The word postal is a 'misnomer.' These votes were actually tendered by the poll officers to the electors and received back by the poll officers after casting of votes by such electors. Hence, rejection of 348 postal ballots of absentee voters in the aforesaid 3 categories is without authority and is nothing but an improper rejection of valid votes which has materially affected the election as far as the first respondent, the returned candidate is concerned. (See Paragraph 33 of the E.P.) 20.2. On the other hand the respondent in his written statement contends that reference to Rules 24 to 27 in Ext.A2 by the RO is of no consequence; that it is evident from the Act, Rules and guidelines that the votes cast by the absentee voters are postal ballots and hence Rule 54A is squarely applicable. (See paragraph 7 and 13 in the w.s.) 21. Ext.A2, the reply given by PW1, the RO, to Ext.A3 request of the election agent of the petitioner, reads:- “As per your application referred, you had requested to consider the postal ballots rejected during counting. (See paragraph 7 and 13 in the w.s.) 21. Ext.A2, the reply given by PW1, the RO, to Ext.A3 request of the election agent of the petitioner, reads:- “As per your application referred, you had requested to consider the postal ballots rejected during counting. On conducting enquiry on your complaint, it was revealed that the counting and decisions on the postal ballots are based on Rule 24 to 27 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the subsequent guidelines of the Election Commission. 348 postal votes of the total postal votes has been rejected since the same has been submitted without complying with the conditions and directions mandated under the aforesaid rules. It is submitted that at the time of rejecting each postal votes, the officials authorized in each counting table had convinced the counting agents of the candidates in the respective tables about the reasons for rejection and they had approved the same and had signed the tabulation sheets. Since the winning majority was of 38 votes which was less than the total number of rejected votes, the rejected postal votes were re-examined before the declaration of election result in the presence of the agents of the candidates, central observer, micro observer, Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer and the decisions for rejecting was convinced and the same was confirmed. In such circumstances, it is regretfully informed that, there is no reason to accept your request in your application referred to reconsider the rejected postal ballots.” 21.1. Part III of the Rules dealing with postal ballots contain Rules 17 to 27. Rule 17 deals with the definition of “service voter”, “special voter” and “voter on election duty”. Rule 18 deals with persons entitled to vote by post and sub-clause (v) to clause (a) of Rule 18 inserted vide SO 3786(E) dated 2210/2019, to which I have already referred to, deals with persons notified under clause (c) of Section 60 of the Act which includes absentee voters. Rule 19 deals with intimation by special voters; Rule 20 with intimation by voters on election duty; Rule 21 with electors under preventive detention; Rule 22 with form of ballot paper; Rule 23 with issue of ballot paper; Rule 24 with recording of vote; Rule 25 with assistance to illiterate or infirm voters; Rule 26 with re-issue of ballot paper and Rule 27 with return of ballot paper. Therefore, it is apparent that Part III does not deal with the procedure of voting or counting of votes of absentee voters in the aforesaid three categories. 21.2. Now coming to Part III A of the Rules, which contain Rule 27A to Rule 27L. Rule 27B dealing with special provisions for voting by the notified class of electors says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Part III, the provisions of this part shall apply to a notified elector who wishes to vote by post at an election. 'Notified elector' has been defined in Rule 27A(b) as an elector who belongs to a class of persons notified by the Election Commission under clause(c) of Section 60 of the Act, other than an absentee voter. Rule 27B makes it clear that Part IIIA is also not applicable to the absentee voters of the aforesaid three categories. Nobody has a case that any of the voters from whom PW5 to PW7 and PW14 to PW35, the SPOs, who had collected the postal ballots, do not fall under the category of an absentee voter (Rule 27A(aa)) or senior citizen (Rule 27A(e)) or COVID-19 suspect or affected persons (Rule 27A(f)). It is true that the second proviso to Rule 27C; the second proviso to Rule 27E; Rule 27F(3) and the first proviso Rule 27-I(1) refer to absentee voter, to which provisions I have already referred to. A plain reading of the said provisions also show that they do not deal with the procedure for counting or the grounds for rejection of the votes. 22. It was argued on behalf of the first respondent that if at all the EC had powers under Rules 27E, 27F and 27-I to issue any orders, it can only be relating to the manner in which the postal ballots shall be issued (second proviso to Rule 27E) ; specifying the centre for recording of vote by absentee voter (Rule 27F(3)) and specifying the centre for recording of vote under sub rule (3) of Rule 27F (first proviso to Rule 27-I(1)) and nothing more. The Election Commission cannot issue any guideline beyond which has been provided under the aforesaid rules. The Election Commission cannot issue any guideline beyond which has been provided under the aforesaid rules. Referring to Section 169 of the Act dealing with the power to make rules, it was pointed out that it is only the Central Government which has been empowered by the Act to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and not the EC. 23. I have already held that by virtue of Article 324, the EC has the power to step in where the rules are silent and issue orders prescribing procedure for the smooth conduct of the election and that Ext.A1 is one such order. But Ext.A1 also does not provide for the procedure for counting or the procedure to be followed in rejection of votes. Clause 6 of Ext.A1 guidelines deal with the procedure to be followed after the SPOs had got the votes cast by the absentee voters. It reads thus: “Deposit of envelopes containing marked ballot papers and counterfoils At the end of each day of visit by poll officers to the address of AVSC/AVPD/AVCO electors, the envelopes in Form-12C containing postal ballot paper etc. and the counterfoils of ballot papers containing the signature/thumb impression of electors and other particulars, shall be collected by the ARO designated of postal voting by the the absentee voters. The ARO shall make arrangements to have the same delivered at the headquarters of the RO for keeping them in safe custody. The ARO shall maintain the record indicating the number of ballots sent on each day. This should also be shared with the RO on a daily basis.” 23.1. Ext.A13, another order issued by the Election Commission, deals with the guidelines for voting through postal ballots by absentee voters on essential service (AVES). Apparently, Ext.A13 is not applicable to the absentee voters like AVSC, AVPD and AVCO, with whom alone we are concerned with. 24. Rule 24 dealing with recording of votes was also referred to by both sides. Sub-rule (1) says that an elector who has received a postal ballot paper and desires to vote shall record his vote on ballot paper in accordance with the directions in Part I of Form 13D and then enclose it in Form 13B cover. Sub-rule (2) says that the elector shall sign the declaration in Form 13A in the presence of, and have the signature attested by, an officer referred to therein. Sub-rule (2) says that the elector shall sign the declaration in Form 13A in the presence of, and have the signature attested by, an officer referred to therein. As per Rule 24 the voter has to go to the officer concerned to get the attestation. But in the case of absentee voters of the three categories involved in this case, the polling officers as per Ext.A1 were to go to the residence of the voter concerned, get the necessary forms filled up and attest the same. The only difference between the voters mentioned in Rule 24 and the voters in the present case is that, in the former, the voter will have to go to the officer concerned for attestation whereas in the case of the latter, the officer concerned would personally go to the residence of the voter and do the attestation among other things. Likewise as per Rule 25, the elector to whom Rule 24 or 25 is applicable, shall return the ballot paper and declaration to the RO in accordance with the instructions in Part I of Form 13D. But in the case of absentee voters, as per Clause 6 of Ext.A1, it is the SPOs who have to deposit the votes collected before the RO. 25. Part V of the Rules deal with counting of votes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies. Rule 54A deals with counting of votes received by post and Rule 56 deals with counting of votes. Rule 54A reads- 54A. Counting of votes received by post.—(1) The returning officer shall first deal with the postal ballot papers in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) No cover in Form 13C received by the returning officer after the expiry of the time fixed in that behalf shall be opened and no vote contained in any such cover shall be counted. (3) The other covers shall be opened one after another and as each cover is opened, the returning officer shall first scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A contained therein. (3) The other covers shall be opened one after another and as each cover is opened, the returning officer shall first scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A contained therein. (4) If the said declaration is not found, or has not been duly signed and attested, or is otherwise substantially defective, or if the serial number of the ballot paper as entered in it differs from the serial number endorsed on the cover in Form 13B, that cover shall not be opened, and after making an appropriate endorsement thereon, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper therein contained. (5) Each cover so endorsed and the declaration received with it shall be replaced in the cover in Form 13C and all such covers in Form 13C shall be kept in a separate packet which shall be sealed and on which shall be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of its content. (6) The returning officer shall then place all the declarations in Form 13A which he has found to be in order in a separate packet which shall be sealed before any cover in Form 13B is opened and on which shall be recorded the particulars referred to in sub-rule (5). (7) The covers in Form 13B not already dealt with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then be opened one after another and the returning officer shall scrutinise each ballot paper and decide the validity of the vote recorded thereon. (8) A postal ballot paper shall be rejected— (a) if it bears any mark (other than the mark to record the vote) or writing by which the elector can be identified; or (aa) if no vote is recorded thereon; or (b) if notes are given on it in favour of more candidates than one; or (c) if it is a spurious ballot paper; or (d) if it is so damaged or mutilated that its identity as a genuine ballot paper cannot be established; or (e) if it is not returned in the cover sent along with it to the elector by the returning officer. (9) A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall be rejected if the mark indicating the vote is placed on the ballot paper in such manner as to make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given. (9) A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall be rejected if the mark indicating the vote is placed on the ballot paper in such manner as to make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given. (10) A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once, if the intention that the vote shall be for a particular candidate clearly appears from the way the paper is marked. (11) The returning officer shall count all the valid votes given by postal ballot in favour of each candidates, record the total thereof in the result sheet in Form 20 and announce the same. (12) Thereafter, all the valid ballot papers and all the rejected ballot papers shall be separately bundled and kept together in a packet which shall be sealed with the seals of the returning officer and of such of the candidates, their election agent or counting agents as may desire to affix their seals thereon and on the packet so sealed shall be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of its contents.” 25.1. Rule 56 reads- “Counting of Votes.— (1) The ballot papers taken out of each ballot box shall be arranged in convenient bundles and scrutinized. Rule 56 reads- “Counting of Votes.— (1) The ballot papers taken out of each ballot box shall be arranged in convenient bundles and scrutinized. (2) The returning officer shall reject a ballot paper— (a) if it bears any mark or writing by which the elector can be identified, or/(b) if it bears no mark at all or, to indicate the vote, it bears a mark elsewhere than on or near the symbol of one of the candidates on the face of the ballot paper or, it bears a mark made otherwise than with the instrument supplied for the purpose, or/(c) if votes are given on it in favour of more than one candidate, or/(d) if the mark indicating the vote thereon is placed in such manner as to make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given, or/(e) if it is a spurious ballot paper, or/(f) if it is so damaged or mutilated that its identity as a genuine ballot paper cannot be established, or/(g) if it bears a serial number, or is of a design, different from the serial numbers, or, as the case may be, design, of the ballot papers authorised for use at the particular polling station, or/(h) if it does not bear both the mark and the signature which it should have borne under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 38: Provided that where the returning officer is satisfied that any such defect as is mentioned in clause (g) or clause (h) has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of a presiding officer or polling officer, the ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground of such defect: Provided further that a ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once, if the intention that the vote shall be for a particular candidate clearly appears from the way the paper is marked. (3) Before rejecting any ballot paper under sub- rule (2), the returning officer shall allow each counting agent present a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot paper but shall not allow him to handle it or any other ballot paper. (3) Before rejecting any ballot paper under sub- rule (2), the returning officer shall allow each counting agent present a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot paper but shall not allow him to handle it or any other ballot paper. (4) The returning officer shall endorse on every ballot paper which he rejects the word "Rejected" and the grounds of rejection in abbreviated form either in his own hand or by means of a rubber stamp and shall initial such endorsement. (5) All ballot papers rejected under this rule shall be bundled together. (6) Every ballot paper which is not rejected under this rule shall be counted as one valid vote: Provided that no cover containing tendered ballot papers shall be opened and no such paper shall be counted. (7) After the counting of all ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes used at a polling station has been completed,— (a) the counting supervisor shall fill in and sign Part II—Result of Counting, in Form 16, which shall also be signed by the returning officer; and (b) the returning officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in Form 20 and announce the particulars.” 26. As far as counting of the votes is concerned, the Rules do not make any difference between counting of votes of notified elector, absentee voters (AVSC; AVPD and AVCO) and AVES. Only two procedure has been provided for in the Rules, that is, Rule 54A for counting of postal ballots and Rule 56 for counting of the other votes. The SPOs in compliance with Clause 6 of Ext.A1 after complying with the formalities stated therein, were bound to deposit the poll materials to the RO. Nobody has a case that the polling materials had not been deposited before the RO in compliance with Clause 6 of Ext.A1. The next step was counting of votes at the time and place appointed under Rule 51 in the presence of counting agents appointed under Rule 52 and by maintaining secrecy of voting as provided under Rule 54. Rule 54A(1) says that the RO shall, first deal with the postal ballot in the manner provided in the Rule. 27. Therefore it is clear that, it is Rule 54A that is applicable in the case on hand and not Rule 56. Rule 54A(1) says that the RO shall, first deal with the postal ballot in the manner provided in the Rule. 27. Therefore it is clear that, it is Rule 54A that is applicable in the case on hand and not Rule 56. The dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar (Supra) relied on by the election petitioner cannot be applied as it deals with the first proviso to Rule 56 which deals with counting of votes other than postal ballots. There is no proviso similar to the first proviso to Rule 56 in Rule 54A (4). Sub-rule (4) says that if Form 13A declaration is not found, or if the serial number of ballot paper entered in it differs from the serial number endorsed in Form 13B cover, then the 13B cover shall not be opened, and after making an appropriate endorsement thereon, the RO shall reject the ballot paper therein contained. Compliance of sub-rule (4) is mandatory and the RO has not been given any discretion/option as has been given to the RO in the first proviso to Rule 56. Further, the language in sub- rule (4) to Rule 54A does not differentiate between a mistake committed by the Poll Officer(s) and that committed by a voter. Likewise sub-rule (4) to Rule 54A does not differentiate between a voter under Rule 24 and an absentee voter to whom Ext.A1 is applicable. 28. Moreover, as held in Hari Vishnu Kamath (Supra), a vote which is void cannot be accepted as valid by this court. In the said case the argument that the election Rules is to discover the intention of the majority of the voters in the choice of a representative and that if an elector has shown a clear intention to vote for a particular candidate, that must be taken into account under S.100(2)(c), even though the vote might be bad for non- compliance with the formalities, was rejected. It was held that when the law prescribes the intention to be expressed in a particular manner, it can be taken into account only if it is so expressed. An intention not duly expressed is, in a Court of law, in the same position as an intention not expressed at all. 29. Therefore, a vote liable to be rejected as per the Rules cannot be taken into consideration and treated as valid. An intention not duly expressed is, in a Court of law, in the same position as an intention not expressed at all. 29. Therefore, a vote liable to be rejected as per the Rules cannot be taken into consideration and treated as valid. The intention of the legislature is quite clear as no option has been given to the RO to accept a ballot paper which is defective as provided under Rule 54A(4) be it the mistake(s) of the Polling Officer(s) or the voter. Further, Clause (a) of Rule 64 says that the candidate – who has obtained the largest number of valid votes shall be declared as elected. Hence, a vote which is not valid as per the Act/or Rules cannot be treated as valid and counted. 30. As held in Jyothi Basu v. Debi Ghosal, MANU/SC/0144/1982 ; Jitu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud, AIR 2012 SC 913 ; Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, 1995 5 SCC 347 : MANU/SC/0455/1995 and in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P.Joshi, AIR 2011 SC 1127 and Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, AIR 2023 SC 3868 a right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected and the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore subject to statutory limitations. An election petition is not an action in common law, nor an equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of equity apply but only those Rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and equity must remain strangers to election law unless statutorily embodied. A court has no right to resort to them on consideration of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, the court is put in a straitjacket. A court has no right to resort to them on consideration of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, the court is put in a straitjacket. Thus, the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Act, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Act and again, no such election can be questioned except in the manner provided by the Act. The Act has been held to be a complete and self-contained Code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. 31. Admittedly, 348 postal ballots have been rejected. Proof regarding 284 votes has been brought in. It was submitted that the remaining 64 votes (348-284) are other postal ballots received by post and not of the absentee voters in the aforesaid three categories. Even if that be so, 252 postal ballots were rejected for the reasons stated in Rule 54A(4). The remaining 32 votes, that is, 16 votes were rejected as page 2 of Form 13A declaration had been filled up and 16 votes as the 13B cover was not found sealed. These are not grounds stated in Rule 54A(4). Assuming that these 32 votes are also taken into consideration and counted, the first respondent would still win by 6 votes because now he has been declared elected by 38 votes. Hence, even assuming that the said 32 votes are counted in favour of the election petitioner, the result of the election would not change. That being the position, I find that the election petition is not entitled to succeed. Points answered accordingly. In the result, the election petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to comply with Section 103 of the Act. Table referred to in paragraph no.18. That being the position, I find that the election petition is not entitled to succeed. Points answered accordingly. In the result, the election petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to comply with Section 103 of the Act. Table referred to in paragraph no.18. Sl.No. Exhibits Number of votes rejected Reasons for rejection 1 Ext.X20; Ext.X21; Ext.X24; Ext.X99; Ext.X100; Ext.X122; Ext.X123; Ext.X124; Ext.X219; Ext.X230; Ext.X305; Ext.X308; Ext.X339; Ext.X340; Ext.X341; Ext.X342; Ext.X343; Ext.X344; Ext.X345; Ext.X346 and Ext.X347 21 Declaration not found 2 Ext.X10(a); Ext.X17(a); Ext.X121(a); Ext.X213(a); Ext.X218(a); Ext.X269(a); Ext.X274(a); Ext.X311(a); Ext.X326(a); Ext.X327(a) and Ext.X328(a) 11 Declaration not duly signed and attested. 3 Ext.X7(a); Ext.X8(b); Ext.X11(a); Ext.X12(b); Ext.X14(a); Ext.X29(b); Ext.X42(a); Ext.X49(a); Ext.X50(a); Ext.X92(b); Ext.X93(b); Ext.X94(b); Ext.X95(b); Ext.X96(b); Ext.X97(b); Ext.X98(b); Ext.X103(b); Ext.X104(b); Ext.X105(b); Ext.X106(b); Ext.X107(b); Ext.X108(b); Ext.X109(b); Ext.X110(b); Ext.X111(b); Ext.X112(b); Ext.X113(b); Ext.X126(a); Ext.X128(a); Ext.X130(a); Ext.X132(a); Ext.X133(a); Ext.X134(a);Ext.X135(a); Ext.X136(a);Ext.X205(b); Ext.X206(b);Ext.X207(b); Ext.X208(b);Ext.X209(b); Ext.X210(b);Ext.X211(b); Ext.X212(b);Ext.X214(a); Ext.X215(a);Ext.X216(a); Ext.X217(a);Ext.X220(b); Ext.X224(b);Ext.X225(b); Ext.X226(b);Ext.X231(b); Ext.X232(a);Ext.X233(a); Ext.X234(a);Ext.X235(a); Ext.X236(a);Ext.X238(a); Ext.X241(a);Ext.X239(a); Ext.X243(a);Ext.X237(a); Ext.X240(a);Ext.X244(a); Ext.X246(a);Ext.X247(a); Ext.X248(a);Ext.X249(a); Ext.X250(a);Ext.X251(a); Ext.X313(a);Ext.X314(b); Ext.X315(b);Ext.X316(b); Ext.X317(b);Ext.X318(b); Ext.X319(b);Ext.X320(a); and Ext.X321(b); 79 Rejected as there was no serial number of the postal ballot paper in Form 13A declaration or in Form 13B cover. 4 Ext.X114(a) 1 Postal ballot rejected as there was no signature of voter. 4 Ext.X114(a) 1 Postal ballot rejected as there was no signature of voter. 5 Ext.X2(a) & Ext.X2(b); Ext.X3(a) & Ext.X3(b); Ext.X15(a) & Ext.X15(b); Ext.X30(a) & Ext.X30(b); Ext.X31(a) & Ext.X31(b); Ext.X32(a) & Ext.X32(b); Ext.X33(a) & Ext.X33(b); Ext.X34(a) & Ext.34(b); Ext.X35(a) & Ext.X35(b); Ext.X69(a) & Ext.X69(b); Ext.X71(a) & Ext.X71(b); Ext.X72(a) & Ext.X72(b); Ext.X73(a) & Ext.X73(b); Ext.X74(a) & Ext.X74(b); Ext.X75(a) & Ext.X75(b); Ext.X76(a) & Ext.X76(b); Ext.X77(a) & Ext.X77(b); Ext.X78(a) & Ext.X78(b); Ext.X79(a) & Ext.X79(b); Ext.X80(a) & Ext.X80(b); Ext.X81(a) & Ext.X81(b); Ext.X82(a) & Ext.X82(b); Ext.X83(a) & Ext.X83(b); Ext.X84(a) & Ext.X84(b); Ext.X85(a) & Ext.X85(b); Ext.X86(a) & Ext.X86(b); Ext.X87(a) & Ext.X87(b); Ext.X88(a) & Ext.X88(b); Ext.X89(a) & Ext.X89(b); Ext.X91(a) & Ext.X91(b); Ext.X101(a) & Ext.X101(b); Ext.X137(a) & Ext.X137(b); Ext.X138(a) & Ext.X138(b); Ext.X139(a) & Ext.X139(b); Ext.X140(a) & Ext.X140(b); Ext.X141(a) & Ext.X141(b); Ext.X142(a) & Ext.X142(b); Ext.X143(a) & Ext.X143(b); Ext.X144(a) & Ext.X144(b); Ext.X145(a) & Ext.X145(b); Ext.X146(a) & Ext.X146(b); Ext.X147(a) & Ext.X147(b); Ext.X148(a) & Ext.X148(b); Ext.X149(a) & Ext.X149(b); Ext.X150(a) & Ext.X150(b); Ext.X151(a) & Ext.X151(b); Ext.X152(a) & Ext.X152(b); Ext.X153(a) & Ext.X153(b); Ext.X154(a) & Ext.X154(b); Ext.X155(a) & Ext.X155(b); Ext.X156(a) & Ext.X156(b); Ext.X157(a) & Ext.X157(b); Ext.X158(a) & Ext.X158(b); Ext.X159(a) & Ext.X159(b); Ext.X160(a) & Ext.X160(b); Ext.X161(a) & Ext.X161(b); Ext.X162(a) & Ext.X162(b); Ext.X163(a) & Ext.X163(b); Ext.X164(a) & Ext.X164(b); Ext.X165(a) & Ext.X165(b); Ext.X166(a) & Ext.X166(b); Ext.X167(a) & Ext.X167(b); Ext.X168(a) & Ext.X168(b); Ext.X169(a) & Ext.X169(b); Ext.X170(a) & Ext.X170(b); Ext.X171(a) & Ext.X171(b); Ext.X173(a) & Ext.X173(b); Ext.X174(a) & Ext.X174(b); Ext.X175(a) & Ext.X175(b); Ext.X176(a) & Ext.X176(b); Ext.X177(a) & Ext.X177(b); Ext.X178(a) & Ext.X178(b); Ext.X179(a) & Ext.X179(b); Ext.X180(a) & Ext.X180(b); Ext.X181(a) & Ext.X181(b); Ext.X182(a) & Ext.X182(b); Ext.X183(a) & Ext.X183(b); Ext.X184(a) & Ext.X184(b); Ext.X185(a) & Ext.X185(b); Ext.X186(a) & Ext.X186(b); Ext.X187(a) & Ext.X187(b); Ext.X188(a) & Ext.X188(b); Ext.X189(a) & Ext.X189(b); Ext.X190(a) & Ext.X190(b); Ext.X191(a) & Ext.X191(b); Ext.X192(a) & Ext.X192(b); Ext.X193(a) & Ext.X193(b); Ext.X194(a) & Ext.X194(b); Ext.X195(a) & Ext.X195(b); Ext.X196(a) & Ext.X196(b); Ext.X197(a) & Ext.X197 (b); Ext.X198(a) & Ext.X198(b); Ext.X199(a) & Ext.X199(b); Ext.X200(a) & Ext.X200(b); Ext.X201(a) & Ext.X201(b); Ext.X202(a) & Ext.X202(b); Ext.X203(a) & Ext.X203(b); Ext.X204(a) & Ext.X204(b); Ext.X221(a) & Ext.X221(b); Ext.X222(a) & Ext.X222(b); Ext.X223(a) & Ext.X223(b); Ext.X245(a) & Ext.X245(b); Ext.X253(a) & Ext.X253(b); Ext.X254(a) & Ext.X254(b); Ext.X255(a) & Ext.X255(b); Ext.X256(a) & Ext.X256(b); Ext.X257(a) & Ext.X257(b); Ext.X258(a) & Ext.X258(b); Ext.X259(a) & Ext.X259(b); Ext.X260(a) & Ext.X260(b); Ext.X261(a) & Ext.X261(b); Ext.X262(a) & Ext.X262(b); Ext.X263(a) & Ext.X263(b); Ext.X264(a) & Ext.X264(b); Ext.X265(a) & Ext.X265(b); Ext.X266(a) & Ext.X266(b); Ext.X267(a) & Ext.X267(b); Ext.X268(a) & Ext.X268(b); Ext.X269(a) & Ext.X269(b); Ext.X270(a) & Ext.X270(b); Ext.X271(a) & Ext.X271(b); Ext.X272(a) & Ext.X272(b); Ext.X273(a) & Ext.X273(b); Ext.X274(a) & Ext.X274(b); Ext.X275(a) & Ext.X275(b); Ext.X276(a) & Ext.X276(b); Ext.X277(a) & Ext.X277(b); Ext.X278(a) & Ext.X278(b); Ext.X279(a) & Ext.X279(b); Ext.X280(a) & Ext.X280(b); Ext.X281(a) & Ext.X281(b); Ext.X282(a) & Ext.X282(b); Ext.X283(a) & Ext.X283(b); Ext.X284(a) & Ext.X284(b); Ext.X285(a) & Ext.X285(b); Ext.X286(a) & Ext.X286(b); Ext.X287(a) & Ext.X287(b); Ext.X288(a) & Ext.X288(b); Ext.X289(a) & Ext.X289(b); Ext.X290(a) & Ext.X290(b). 140 Serial number of the ballot paper in Form 13A differs from serial number entered on Form 13B cover. 6 Ext.X4(a); Ext.X5(a); Ext.X6(a); Ext.X115(a); Ext.X116(a); Ext.X117(a); Ext.X118(a); Ext.X154(a); Ext.X306(a); Ext.X119(a); Ext.X307(a); Ext.X310(a); Ext.X312(a); Ext.X321(a). Ext.X120(a) and Ext.X309(a) 16 Page 2 of Form 13A declaration filled up 7 Ext.X227(b); Ext.X231(b); Ext.X291(b); Ext.X292(b); Ext.X293(b); Ext.X294(b); Ext.X295(b); Ext.X296(b); Ext.X297(b); Ext.X298(b); Ext.X299(b); Ext.X300(b); Ext.X301(b); Ext.X302(b); Ext.X303(b) and Ext.X304(b) 16 Form 13B cover not sealed.