V.V. Raghavan, J.
1. The petitioner in the Election Original Petition No. 30 of 1970., on the file of the Court of the Election Tribunal (Principal District Munsif), Turaiyur, is the petitioner herein. The revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Election Commissioner, rejecting the petition seeking to declare the election of the first respondent to the office of the Vice-Chairman of the Thathiangarpet Panchayat Union Council as invalid.
The petitioner's case is that he and the first respondent contested for the Vice-Chairmanship of the Panchayat Union Council, Thathiangarpet, that after the counting of the votes the petitioner was announced to have secured 13 votes and the first respondent who originally secured 12 votes, one of the votes on the further scrutiny was held to be valid with the result that both the petitioner and the first respondent secured 13 votes each and lots were cast and the first respondent was declared elected as the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council. The present Election Original Petition out of which the Civil Revision Petition has arisen is filed to set aside the election on the ground that the disputed one vote contained 2 marks from which the voter could be identified, that the secrecy of voting has been violated and that the disputed vote should not have been taken into account in favour of the first respondent and that consequently the petitioner should be declared elected he having secured 13 votes as against 12 votes of the first respondent.
2. The first respondent filed a counter contending that after scrutiny and counting of the votes cast, both the petitioner and the first respondent were declared to have obtained 13 votes each and as per the Rules lots were cast and the first respondent became successful and consequently declared elected as Vice-Chairman, that no objection was raised by the petitioner until the lots were cast, that the petitioner, having taken a chance of getting elected as a result of casting of the votes, has filed the present Election Petition because he did not succeed finally.
3. The Tribunal as a result of an elaborate enquiry came to the conclusion that in the ballot paper in question there are no marks other than the cross marks except the fact that two marks are set against the name of the first respondent one over the other perhaps as a result of folding the ballot paper. The Tribunal also held that under the Rules the ballot paper containing the two marks cannot be declared invalid. In the result, the petition was dismissed. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the said order.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the ballot paper containing the two marks is a valid one. In my view, the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion. The Rules do not show that there should not be more than one cross mark for the candidates to whom the vote is cast. In fact, two cross marks may have resulted from the folding of the ballot paper and the finding of the Tribunal that the disputed vote had been validly taken into account is a question of fact and the finding on the question is correct and that finding cannot be attached in a Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in a series of cases has held that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is only administrative.
5. The Civil Revision Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.