ARUN KUMAR BOSE Vs. MORD FURKAN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short), is directed against the decision of the High Court at Patna setting aside the appellant's election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 115 Jamtara Assembly Constituency polling for which was held on May 31, 1980, arid the result of which was declared on June 2, 1980. Sixteen candidates being the appellant and the 15 respondents contested the election. The appellant was the candidate of the Communist. Party of India and respondent No. 1 was of the Congress (I) Party. At the poll the appellant received 13336 votes while the respondent No. 1 polled 13312 votes. The appellant was, therefore, declared elected on the footing that he had received 24 more votes than the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had polled 13285 votes. As the election dispute has been confined to the appellant and respondent No. 1 it is not necessary to refer to the other candidates or indicate particulars of their performance at the election. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Act asking for the appellant's election to be set aside and for a declaration that he should be declared as the successful candidate. In para 9 of the election petition he pleaded the details of the illegalities and irregularities committed in the course of counting of the ballot papers. It is not necessary to refer to the other details excepting what was pleaded in para 9(i) as respondent No. 1 did not press the election petition on those grounds. The pleading in the sub-paragraph was to the following effect:

(2.) It is appropriate to indicate here that the High Court did not take into account the plea in regard to 31 ballot papers in the absence of particulars. The appellant in his written statement before the High Court pleaded that the statements contained in para 9 and its sub-paragraphs were vague and incorrect. In para. 16 of the written statement it was stated:

(3.) In paragraph 18 of the written statement the appellant pleaded that: