JUDGMENT : (ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.) The petitioner is the elected member of Manimala Grama Panchayat from Ward No.13. The petitioner was also elected as Chairperson for the Standing Committee for Welfare of the said Grama Panchayat. As per Ext.P1, the 4 th respondent moved a motion of no confidence against him. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, the returning officer convened a special meeting of the members to consider the said no confidence motion. 2. After the discussions, the no confidence motion was put to vote. The ballot papers were supplied to the parties and the petitioner. The said ballot paper contains two columns, one to oppose the no confidence motion and other one to support the no confidence motion. The petitioner marked ‘X’ in the corresponding column intended to oppose the no-confidence motion, whereas the 5 th respondent wrote in the corresponding column for supporting the motion as, “supporting the no confidence motion”. On the other hand, the 4th respondent put a ‘ v ’ mark on the corresponding column to support the no confidence motion. The petitioner immediately raised an objection to the effect that, the marking of the votes on the ballot made by the 4 th and 5 th respondents were not in tune with the requirements contemplated in Ext.P2 guidelines specified by the Election Commission in this regard. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 contemplates for putting an ‘ X ’ mark for casting the vote, and since the same was not followed by the 4 th and 5 th respondents, the votes of the said respondents cannot be treated as valid. 3. Since a dispute has been raised in this regard, the publication of result was put on hold and a clarification was sought by the 2 nd respondent from the 1 st respondent. In response to the same, Ext.P5 was issued by the 1 st respondent Election Commission, wherein it was ordered that, the decision has to be taken by the 2 nd respondent taking note of the intention of the voters as reflected from the ballot papers. Accordingly, Ext.P6 notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent publishing the results of the no confidence motion by which the no confidence motion was declared as passed. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P5 and P6 communications. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent publishing the results of the no confidence motion by which the no confidence motion was declared as passed. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P5 and P6 communications. 4. Heard Sri.Abesh Alosious, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission and Sri.Adhil P., standing counsel for the Manimala Grama Panchayat. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly placing reliance on Ext.P2 guidelines issued by the 1 st respondent, wherein it was directed that the voting has to be made by putting an ‘ X ’ mark on the ballot paper. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1 st respondent submits that, as far as Ext.P2 is concerned, the same is issued as a guideline to follow a uniform pattern and it was not intended to invalidate any vote, merely because of the reason that the marking of the vote was not made in the manner as mentioned in Ext.P2, so long as the intention of the voter is clear from the ballot paper. 6. The learned standing counsel brought the attention of this Court to Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000, in which Rules 11 and 15 deal with the manner of election of the Chairman and the manner of voting for expressing no confidence on the Chairman, respectively. On carefully going through the statutory stipulations, it is seen that, Rule 15(9) contemplates for putting the no-confidence motion to vote, after the discussion on the confidence motion is over and as per Rule 9(a), which is introduced by way of an amendment as per notification dated 20.05.2022, the voter has to put his signature and name, on the reverse side of the ballot paper. There is no stipulation with regard to the marking of the vote. On the other hand, Rule 11, which deals with the manner of election of the Chairman, in Sub Rule (5) thereof, it is specifically mentioned that the vote has to be marked by putting ‘ X ’ on the ballot paper. Similarly, Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 11 provides for rejection of vote which does not contain a mark of ‘X’. 7. Similarly, Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 11 provides for rejection of vote which does not contain a mark of ‘X’. 7. Similarly, provisions are provided in Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice President) Rules, 1995, wherein, sub rule (3) of Rule 9 thereof contemplates the manner of election of the President or Vice President, and it has been prescribed by putting a mark of ‘X’ on the ballet paper. Rule 10 of the said Rules provides for rejection of the votes marked differently. Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with the consideration of motion of no confidence against the President and the Vice President and in sub section 9(A) of Section 157 contemplates that, election shall be by means of open ballot and a member who casts his vote shall affix his name and signature on the reverse side of the ballet paper. Here also, the manner of voting through a particular marking, for no confidence is not contemplated. Thus, it is seen that wherever the legislature wanted the voting to be done in a particular manner by putting particular marking on the ballot, the same has been specifically mentioned and appropriate provisions were incorporated for invalidating the votes, which were made without following the said procedure. However, as far as the motion of no confidence is concerned, no such stipulations are contemplated anywhere in the statute. Besides, the learned standing counsel for the 1 st respondent brought the attention of this Court to the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Ahammed K.K v. P.J Antony and Another [ 2005 (4) KLT 361 ], wherein the circumstances under which the vote can be invalidated was considered. After relying upon the statutory provisions and the observations made by the Honoruable Supreme Court in Ramphal Kundu Y.v. Kamal Sharma [ 2004(2) SCC 759 ] the following observations were made by this Court: “7. The Apex Court in Ramphal Kundu. Y v. Kamal Sharma ( 2004(2) SCC 759 ) interpreting S.36(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 held that the absence of the seal on Form No.B is not a defect of substantial character. The Apex Court in Ramphal Kundu. Y v. Kamal Sharma ( 2004(2) SCC 759 ) interpreting S.36(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 held that the absence of the seal on Form No.B is not a defect of substantial character. Apex Court in S.Sivaswami v. Malaikannan and other ( AIR 1983 SC 1293 ) held that the rejection of ballot papers should not be made if marking on ballot paper is indicative of identity of the candidate for whom vote is cast. Court held that the essence of the principle incorporated in the rule is that so long as the ballot paper bears a mark made with the instrument supplied for the purpose, the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid, if it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking as to the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the vote had been given. In Era Sezhiyan v. T.R.Balu and other ( AIR 1990 SC 838 ) also the Apex Court subscribed the same view and held that the primary task of the Court in a case where the question is whether the ballot paper is invalid or not is to ascertain the intention of the voter. Court held that the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid if it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking so as to identify the candidate in favour of whom, the vote had been intended to be given. 8. The Act 11 of 1999 also introduced pare materia provisions such as sub-s.7A in S.153 and sub-s.9A in S.157 and that even the rule making authority has adopted the above mentioned view which is discernible when we look at R.10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice President) Rules, 1995. S.153 is the provision which deals with the election of President and Vice President. So far as S.153 is concerned R.10 is relevant. R.10 was brought into force to the Kerala Panchauat Raj ((Election of President and Vice President) Rules by substitution as per S.R.O.No.98/99 following the aforesaid Anti Defection Act and the said provision also does not provide for rejection of votes on the ground that the name and signature of the voter are not on the reverse side of the ballot paper. Looking at the context in which sub-s.(9A) is placed we are of the view since the particulars mentioned in the facing sheet has not been effaced by putting name and signature on the facing page of the ballot the vote cannot be invalidated. 9. We therefore fully subscribe the view of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal reminding that the cardinal rule to be followed by the election officers and Courts in election matter is to ascertain the intention of the voter as disclosed by the vote really cast and give effect to that intention and not to resort strict logomachy and syntax.” 7. Apart from the above, in Mathai Yohannan v. Mathew Joseph and Others [ 1997 (2) KLJ 482 == 1997 KHC 305] this Court observed that, vote will be invalidated only if it satisfied the requirements of the rules which speak about such invalidation. Intention of the voter in marking the vote will be invalidated only if it satisfy all the requirements of the rules which speak about invalidation and a ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid, if it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking as to the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the vote had been given. 8. Thus, from the careful examination of the statutory stipulations referred to above and also the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the only conclusion possible is that, when the marking in the ballot clearly conveys the intention of the voter, either to support the no confidence motion or not to support the same, the same has to be respected and merely because of the reason that the voting was not done in a particular mode of marking, the same cannot be invalidated. It is very crucial to note in this regard that, as far as the consideration of the no confidence motion is concerned, whether it is in respect to the President or Vice President or in the case of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, relevant rules do not contemplate any particular manner in which voting has to be made and for invalidating the votes if the marking is not done in a particular manner. The same is contemplated only in respect to the election of the President/Vice President and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee. The same is contemplated only in respect to the election of the President/Vice President and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee. Therefore, it is very much evident that the statutory provisions never intended to prescribe any particular manner in which voting has to be recorded on the ballot paper in the case of non confidence motion. 9. As far as Ext.P2 and the stipulations contained therein are concerned, it is specifically submitted by the learned standing counsel for the 1 st respondent that, the same was prescribed only to ensure uniformity and it was not intended to invalidate any votes merely because such a form of marking was not done on the ballot paper. Moreover, in Ext.P5, the 1 st respondent has already taken a decision after considering this particular dispute and issued necessary directions to ensure that the result of the motion of no confidence is to be published after ascertaining the intention of the voters as reflected from the ballot papers. The stand taken by the 1 st respondent is in tune with the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions in Mathai Yohannan (supra) and Ahammed K.K (supra). 10. When coming to the ballot papers in question in this case, it is seen that the 4 th respondent had put a ‘v’ on the corresponding column for supporting the no confidence motion, whereas the 5 th respondent had speci corresponding column as he is supporting the motion. Thus, the intention of the parties are very much evident therefrom and no other conclusion are possible. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent and the Ext.P6 publication of results. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.