SINDHU Vs. VRINDA RADHAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is in challenge of Ext. P6, order dated 05/07/2011 in OP (EI) No. 18 of 2010 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry. By the impugned order on Ext. P4, application filed by the first respondent learned Munsiff directed the Electoral Officer to produce the documents specified in Ext. P4, application.

(2.) THE issue arises in an election petition preferred by the first respondent challenging election of petitioner from Ward No. XIII of Panjal Grama Panchayath in the election held on 25/ 10/2010. It is not disputed that as per the declared result, petitioner got 334 votes as against 328 votes secured by the first respondent. Second respondent got 217 votes. Seventeen (17) votes were declared invalid. In paragraph 2 of Ext. P1, election petition first respondent stated that in the course of counting on account of the biased attitude of the counting officials, four votes which ought to have been counted in favour of the first respondent were counted in favour of petitioner and two votes which ought to have been counted in favour of the first respondent were counted in favour of the second respondent. It is further alleged that one vote of the first respondent which was valid was improperly rejected as invalid. If counting officials had acted in a fair manner, the above seven votes should have been counted in favour of the first respondent and herself declared elected. First respondent prayed that election of petitioner from Ward No.XIII of Panjal Grama Panchyat be declared invalid and that herself be declared elected. Petitioner filed counter to Ext. P1, election petition denying various allegations in the election petition. While so, the first respondent filed Ext. P4, application to direct the Electoral Officer to produce the documents referred to therein. That application was objected by petitioner but the objections were overruled and the application was allowed by Ext. P6, order which is under challenge.

(3.) IN P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen the issue decided was, when recounting is to be ordered. It would appear that in that case recounting was ordered by the Election Tribunal as there was no serious objection from the opposite side and as recounting would not prejudice the opposite side. The Supreme Court dealt with the issue in paragraph 10 where the decision in Dr.Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh7 is quoted with approval. IN the said case it was held that in a proper case, the Tribunal can order inspection of ballot boxes and may proceed to examine the objections raised by the parties in relation to the improper acceptance or rejection of the voting papers. But in exercising that power, the Tribunal has to bear in mind certain important considerations. Reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which required that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relied and in every case where a prayer is made by a petitioner for inspection of ballot boxes, the Tribunal must enquire whether the application made by petitioner in that behalf contains a concise statement of material facts on which he relies. Vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected or invalid votes were improperly accepted would not serve the purpose which Sections 83(1)(a) of the RP Act (as involved in that case) has in mind. IN dealing with this question, the importance of secrecy of ballot papers could not be ignored and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory rules framed under the RP Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for examination of validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting.