BHAG MAL Vs. PARBHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing Election Petition 6 of 1982 filed by respondent 1.

(2.) The appellant, Bhag Mal, was declared elected as a Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) from No. 3, Sadhura Scheduled Caste reserved constituency in the election held on 19-5-1982. The contest was between the appellant and 12 others including respondent 1, Parbhu Ram, who was the election petitioner, The appellant secured 20981 votes while respondent 1 secured 20971 votes and he was declared to have been elected. Respondent 1 challenged the election of the appellant on the ground that the counting was not proper and invalid and he prayed not only for recounting of the votes but also for declaration that he is the duly elected candidate.

(3.) Respondent 1 alleged in the election petition that the Returning Officer initially ordered the recount of the ballot papers of himself and the appellant in respect of all the booths after a sample checking but on the application of the appellant that the ballot papers of all the candidates should be recounted, to which respondent 1 consented, he ordered recount of all the votes. However, it was alleged that the Returning, Officer recounted the ballot papers of the appellant and respondent 1 alone and therefore the recount was void. In the original counting 1277 ballot papers were rejected as invalid but in the recounting by the Returning Officer 1377 ballot papers were rejected on that ground. The additional 100 ballot papers which were alleged to have been originally accepted in favour of respondent 1 were alleged to have been rejected by the Returning Officer under the influence of the Naib Tehsildar (Election) of Ambala who was alleged to have been favouring the appellant, Three ballot papers alleged to have been cast in favour of respondent 1 at booth No. 19 were alleged to have been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were meant for the Kalka constituency. Thus this ground alleged by respondent 1 relates to improper rejection of about 100. ballot papers said to have been cast in favour of respondent 1 in the recounting by the. Returning Officer.