SATENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenge the judgement and order dated 22 12 2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Deoria in Election Petition No. 8 of 2006, Satyendra Kumar Singh v. Anand Dwivedi and others, whereby the election petition filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner alongwith 7 other candidates had contested the election of members of ward No. 20 of Nagar Palika Parishad, Deoria held on 31.10.2006. Out of total 3187 votes of said ward 1984 voters had casted their votes. In the counting of votes held on 6.1.2006 and Sri Anand Dwivedi was declared elected having secured total 566 votes and the petitioner stood second, alleged to have got 551 votes. Feeling aggrieved against the counting of votes the petitioner has filed Election Petition No. 8 of 2006 before Election Tribunal i.e. District Judge, Deoria challenging the result of said election on the ground of fraud played while counting of votes and prayed for recounting of votes of said election in respect of ward in question.

(3.) The petitioner had specifically stated in the election petition that while counting of votes, the votes of every candidate were declared from time to time and according to that declaration the petitioner was leading by a margin of 95 votes from the returned candidate but while final declaration of result the respondent Sri Anand Dwivedi was declared elected by a margin of 15 votes in fraudulent manner by wrongly and illegally counting of 50 votes of petitioner in favour of Anand Dwivedi. Not only this but while declaring Sri Anand Dwivedi as elected in the said election his 20 invalid votes were wrongly accepted as valid votes and 10 more valid votes of the petitioner were rejected as invalid. It was also stated that the petitioner had more valid votes than elected candidate and was entitled to be declared as elected in place of returned candidate. It was also stated in the said election petition that the objection with regard of illegal counting of votes was immediately raised by the petitioner to the Returning Officer in writing but Returning Officer had neither accepted the objection of petitioner nor paid any heed to the objection of fraud raised by the petitioner while counting of votes. The respondent Anand Dwivedi had filed his written statement/objection in the aforesaid election petition and denied the allegations made in it.