IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15367 of 2008 RANJU DEVI Wife of Mahendra Thakur resident of village Khuranda P.O. Khuranda O.P.Simultalla Panchayat Khuranda Block and P.S. Jhajha Dist. Jamui Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The State Election Commission, Son Bhawan, Bihar, Patna though its Joint Election Commissioner. 3. The District Magistrate cum District Election Officer, Jamui 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Jamui 5. The S.D.O., Jhajha, Jamui 6. The B.D.O., Jhajha ,Jamui 7. Babita Devi wife of Shri Manoj Thakur of Chappa P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 8. Sidheshwar Gosai Son of Late Khesari Gosai of Phoksha P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 9. Kusum Devi wife of Balmiki Yadav of Sahiya P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 10. Mahendra Paswan son of Jago Paswan of Patav P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 11. Upendra Yadav son of Arjun Yadav of Dighara P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 12. Laila Khatoon son of Yakub Ansari of Dumramoh P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 13. Arbind Ram son of Late Baleshwar Ram of Chittochak P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 14. Gulabi Devi wife of Shankar Mandal of Chapari P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 15. Kaili Hansada wife of Karuja Tuddu of Ganeshadih P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 16. Ramdeo Das son of Late Bisho Das of Parasi P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 17. Gopal Yadav son of Mani Yadav of Siyatarh P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui 18. Shankar Sharma son of late Heera Hajam of Kanan P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamui Respondents ----------- 06 24.06.2009 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel representating respondent no.7. The challenge in the writ application is to the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the Joint Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna - 2 - which is annexure 4 to the writ application. By virtue of this order the concerned respondent had held that since there was one vote declared invalid as it carried a cross as well as tick mark, a tie of vote in the no confidence occurred there being 12 votes each. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that the motion of no confidence has been carried by the House by majority. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that under the rules of Panchayat Raj Act, a voter is entitled to put either a cross or a tick. If he has done the same then the vote should be counted in favour of the motion instead of declaring invalid. Submission in this regard is fit to be rejected on the face of it. It is absurd to state that a mandate of a voter who has put a cross or tick simultaneously should be treated in favour of no confidence. The vote has to be declared invalid as no intent can be gathered from the ballot. Since there is tie in number of votes, obviously it can not be said that the motion has been carried by majority and the Joint Election Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order. There is no legal infirmity in the order which requires interference. The writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. shahid (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)