LAWS(SC)-1989-9-15

N E HORO Vs. LEANDER TIRU

Decided On September 05, 1989
N.E.HORO Appellant
V/S
LEANDER TIRU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This. appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ranchi Bench) dated 26th May, 1988, in the Election Petition No. 2 of 1985 (R). The High Court has set aside the election of appellant to the State Legislature and instead declared respondent as the successful candidate.

(2.) The facts of the case have been neatly summarised in the judgment of the High Court to which we refer to the extent relevant for our purpose. Shri N. E. Horo, the appellant before us belongs to Jharkhand party. Shri Leander Tiru, the respondent belongs to Congress (1) party. In the general election held in 1985, they were rival candidates for election from 302-Torpa St. Assembly constituency. There were also three other contesting candidates from the same constituency. The appellant secured 19,159 votes as against 19,120 by the respondent. The appellant was thus elected by a narrow margin of 39 votes. The respondent filed an election petition under section 80-A and section 81 of the Representation of the People Act alleging various and varied irregularities in the process of counting. That it was claimed that Hans Raj Singh, the then B.D.O. was on inimical terms with the respondent and had manoeuvred the entire process of counting to his prejudice. The specific instances of illegalities committed by Hans Raj Singh were also highlighted in the petition. He demanded recounting and setting aside the appellant's election. He sought a declaration under section 98(c) as the duly elected candidate. The respondent resisted the election petition and denied all the allegations. He asserted that there was proper scrutiny and counting. He even denied the presence of Hans Raj Singh in the counting hall.

(3.) Upon the pleadings, the issues I to 5 framed in the case relate to the irregularities in counting and scrutiny of ballot papers. The burden was on the respondent to prove that the counting was not in accordance with law.