MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was declared elected from the 51, Dasuya Assembly Constituency to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in the election held on February 7, 1997. The appellant secured 31,701 votes, while respondent No. 1 secured 31,754 votes. The appellant raised an election dispute by filing a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 is void and that the appellant is duly elected as he has secured majority of the valid votes.

(2.) The appellant in his petition before the High Court set out that the counting of votes cast in the said election was conducted in a hall measuring 78 ft. by 23 ft. There were 14 counting tables in addition to a separate table for the Returning Officer. All the ballot papers were put in a huge box and were mixed and, thereafter, packets of 25 ballot papers in each packet were made. In each round 40 packets of 25 ballot papers each were entrusted to the staff at the counting tables. The staff consisted of five persons including a Supervisor. In the first five rounds 1,000 ballot papers were given on each table and in the sixth round 1,000 ballot papers each were entrusted to the personnel on 12 tables and only 132 ballot papers were entrusted to the staff on the 13th table. The total votes polled were about 82,176.1,278 votes were rejected. Thereby 80,898 valid votes were counted.

(3.) It is alleged in the petition that the Returning Officer was obliged to respondent No. 1 who was a Minister of State in Punjab and the Returning Officer did not heed to the objections raised by the appellant and his counting agent orally as well as in writing to the effect that a lot of material irregularities took place in counting the ballot papers; that the appellants election agent Shri Hardial Singh made an application to the Returning Officer for re-check and recounting of the votes; that the application was also signed by the election agent of the candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP; that the said application was presented at 6 p.m. but was not properly considered nor the grievance made therein was duly enquired into by the Returning Officer, that although the appellant was assured by the Returning Officer that he was seeking a direction from the Election Commission of India regarding recount, he announced that the application had been rejected; that about 250 votes had been wrongly rejected as invalid and the counting agents of the appellant had objected to the rejection of such votes, but the Returning Officer and the counting staff were adamant in not treating them as valid votes; that in the second, third and fourth rounds about 150 votes had been put in the bundles of respondent No. 1; that the counting staff at table Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 14 mixed these votes and the packets of valid votes containing votes in favour of the appellant were treated as if cast in favour of respondent No. 1 and counted in his favour, that, similarly, about 150 valid papers which were invalid were wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 1; that, up to fourth round respondent No. 1 was leading but after the fifth and sixth rounds the position had changed and at about 5.30 p.m. lights went off for about two minutes and during that period the counting staff had managed to change the bundles to favour respondent No. 1. The appellant relied upon some corrections made in Form 20 to support his assertion that the votes polled in his favour were reduced and those in favour of respondent No. 1 were increased. In addition, it is alleged, there were irregularities in the counting of the postal ballot papers. The appellant contends that there was fencing wire between the counting agents and the supervisory staff and the Returning Officer rejected the votes without allowing the appellant and his election agent or counting agent to note down the serial of the ballot papers. The appellant maintains that the staff, including the Returning Officer, was bent upon declaring respondent No. 1 as elected by wrongful counting of votes in his favour and such improper reception and rejection of the votes had materially affected the result of the election. The appellant also contends that the Returning Officer did not give reasonable opportunity to him in regard to the demand of recounting of votes and the order passed by the Returning Officer could not be treated as one duly passed in eye of law inasmuch as the same had been passed without due application of mind; that the verdict of the electorate is not truly reflected in the result. In the circumstances, the appellant in the election petition sought for inspection and scrutiny of the ballot papers in accordance with Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules and, after scrutiny and inspection of the ballot papers, he sought for a direction for total recount of votes and further reliefs set out above.