BHABHI Vs. SHEO GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of an order dated December 20, 1974 Banerji, J., of the Allahabad High Court who was designated as the Election Judge passed an order granting the application of the respondent No. 1 for a sample inspection of the ballet papers. The order directed that a sample inspection of 20 bundles of 50 ballot papers each of the votes counted in favour of the appellant may be taken out and examined along with the 5 bundles of the rejected ballot papers. It is against this order that the appellant has filed the present appeal by special leave and has assailed the order of the learned single Judge on the ground that the learned Judge has exercised his discretion illegally and improperly in allowing the sample inspection of the ballot papers without there being sufficient proof of the allegations made by the respondent in his petition for setting aside the election of the appellant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly summarised as follows :

(3.) The appellant was elected to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 218, Mubarakpur Constituency in the District of Azamgarh,U. P.The last date of nomination for election to the said assembly was January 24, 1974. The date of scrutiny was January 25, 1974 and that of withdrawal January 28, 1974. The poll was held on February 26, 1974 and the counting of votes done on February 27, 1974. The result of thc election was declared on February 28, 1974. The respondent filed an election petition before the Election Judge of the Allahabad High Court some time in March 1974. The appellant secured 19,728 votes while the respondent No. 1 had secured 19,634 votes and thus the appellant defeated respondent No. 1 by a margin of 94 votes and was duly elected to the U.P. Legislative Assembly. In the petition filed by the respondent before the Allahabad High Court the respondent in paragraph 8 of the said petition made a large number of allegations regarding the improper reception and rejection of votes and regarding wrong arithmetical counting of votes and acceptance of votes which were void. The material facts with respect to the allegations were set out in paragraph 9 of the petition which broadly are as follows.