RAMA RAI Vs. M. RAMANNA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had contested the general election to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) held on 22.11.1989 from No. 1 Kasaragod Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate of the Indian National Congress (Indira) Party, which was a constituent of the United Democratic Front. The United Democratic Front consisted of several other parties. The first respondent was a candidate supported by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and this party was a constituent of the Left Democratic Front, the No. 1 Kasaragod parliamentary Constituency consisted of 7 legislative assembly segments. They are, Manjeswar, Kasaragod, Uduma Hosdurg, Thrikkarippur, Payyannur and Taliparamba. Polling in all these L. A. segments took place on 22.11.1989. The counting of votes started on, 26.11.89 and the result of the election was declared on 27.11.89. Out of the 7, 97, 296 votes polled the petitioner secured 3, 57, 177 votes and the first respondent secured 3,58,723 votes. Thus, the first respondent was declared as duly elected by a margin of 1546 votes. The petitioner alleges that he had a fair chance of winning the election and he would contend that there were serious irregularities in conducting the election and that the first respondent resorted to various corrupt practices and this had materially affected the result of the election. Several allegations are enumerated in the petition and the first respondent raised a preliminary B objection contending that the allegations contained in the election petition are vague and inaccurate and as the petitioner did not furnish sufficient and full particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practices, the pleadings are liable to be struck out. The preliminary objection was heard and this court by order dated 18th June, 1990 held that the allegations in Para.8 to 10 except 19, 21, 22 and 23 are liable to be struck out. So, at present we are concerned with the averments raised in Para.19, 21, 22 and 23.

(2.) IN Para.19 of the petition the petitioner contended that as per the final result sheet of the Hosdurg L. A. segment the petitioner secured 57, 342 votes and the respondent secured only 50,037 votes. But by manipulation in form No. 20 Part II the first respondent was shown to have secured 59.937 votes (which is in excess of 9900 votes) whereas the petitioner was shown as having secured 57,342 votes from the Hosdurg L. A. segment. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that correct entries have not been made in the final result sheet.

(3.) IN Para.22 of the petition it is alleged that in polling station No. 4 of Kasaragod L. A. segment the number of total ballot papers used was 975 and the ballot papers received by the polling station were also 975. But in the final result sheet it was shown that the total ballot papers received in the polling station are 1260. This is also a later manipulation.