' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.- The contest between the private parties to this case is with regard to the election of Chairman Union Council, Ibrahim Abad, Tehsil and District Kasur. The election was 'held on 20th December, 1979, in which the petitioner obtained 6 votes while only 5 were polled in favour of respondent No,
2. Consequently, the petitioner was declared elected and the same was notified I n the official Gazette dated 10th January, 1980.
2. Respondent No, 2 felt aggrieved against the election and therefore, filed an election petition. The main ground taken, inter alia, was that Chapter IV of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules has been violated. Precisely, the objection as it was made out, was that no symbols had been allotted to the two candidates as provide, in rule 23,
3. The parties produced evidence. One of the witnesses produced by the present petitioner stated in cross-examination that "Nishanat" had been allotted to the candidates. The petitioner as his own witness, also in the cross-examination, stated that two ballot-boxes of different colour were placed for the poll and the colour of his box was green. He did not remember the colour of the box of respondent No, 2.
' The Election Tribunal after considering the evidence and arguments of the parties rejected the allegation that the petitioner had given Rs, 10,000 to Bashir Ahmad for securing his vote. He, however, allowed the petition, on the ground that symbols ought to have been allotted, in a case, where two of the voters were illiterate and held the election to be void. He ordered re-election.
' It is contended by the learned counsel that Chapter IV of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules does not apply in its entirety to the election of the Chairman and, therefore, rule 23 contained therein was not operative. He relies on rule 59 and states that there was no necessity of allotting symbols in the case.
' It is to be noted that according to rule 59 (5) read with rule 29 the poll had to be held through secret ballots, as there were more than one candidate contesting. Rute 59 (6) also gives the form of the ballot-papers, which does not contain the names of the candidates. The secrecy in this case would thus be maintained if the ballot-boxes allotted to the contesting parties had either a distinct colour, a symbol or their names on them. Rule 23 was thus applicable. The evidence produced by the petitioner, himself does not explain what was, the situation in this case. It is, however, in the order that two of the members are illiterate. That would exclude the method of putting names of the candidates on the ballot-papers, leaving two other modes applicable. The record on the other hand does not show if any one of them had been applied.
In this view of the matter, we hold that there had to be some sort of distinction known to the members so that they could consciously vote for one or the other candidate. That mandatory requirement having not been met, there was a violation of rules 23, 29 and 59. We, therefore, do not think that any error has been committed by the Election Tribunal, in holding that the election was void. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.