SUBHODH UNIYAL Vs. OM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election of the legislative assembly in Uttarakhand was notified for the 8 Narendranagar Legislative Assembly Constituency and was held on 21.02.2007. The result was declared on 27.02.2007. The petitioner contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress. Respondent no.1 , Om Gopal contested the election as a candidate of the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal. The Returning Officer declared that respondent no.1 was elected by a margin of 4 votes. The petitioner polled 13,725 votes which included 4 postal ballots whereas, the respondent no.1 polled 13,729 votes which included 17 postal ballots.

(2.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the declaration of the result, filed the present election petition under Section 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) praying for a direction that the EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) votes and postal ballots votes be recounted and that the election of the respondent no.1 from Narendranagar Constituency be declared void and the petitioner be declared elected from the said constituency.

(3.) THE petitioner contended that there had been a number of irregularities in the counting of the votes and that the ballot papers were wrongly rejected without assigning any reason, on account of which, the election has been materially affected. It was contended in paragraph 8 of the petition that there was improper reception, refusal and rejection of the votes, which were cast through postal ballots and that the counting of the postal ballots was in violation of Rule 54A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1961). In paragraph 10 of the petition, it was alleged that Kunwar Singh Rawat, Senior Assistant, Tehsil Narendranagarwas allotted the work of sealing ofthe EVM in gross violation of the directions of the Election Commission. It was contended that the staff in the Legislative Constituency could not be given election duty in that constituency and that Kunwar Singh Rawat belongs to the same village as that of respondent no.1 and that Kunwar Singh Rawat is closely related to respondent no. 1.