SATYENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the validity of order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalesar, District Etah/Prescribed Authority in election petition No. 1 of 2005, Ajit Singh v. Satyendra Pal Singh and others, wherein directives have been issued for summoning of the record of election and for recount of the ballots.

(2.) Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that election for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Neemakherda, Block Awagarh, Pargana and Tehsil Jalesar, District Etah had been held, wherein, in all 7 persons had contested the election. In the said election symbol of the petitioner was "Camera" and that of respondent No. 5, Ajit Singh, was "Anaj Osata Kisan". Counting of the ballots took place at Janta Inter College, Awagarh, Etah on 28.08.2005, and after counting was over, result was declared wherein petitioner had won the election by margin of two votes and declaration to this effect was also made. Thereafter, election petition No. 1 of 2005 was filed. In the said election petition, the petitioner appeared and fifed his written statement. Other respondents did not appear, in spite of service of notice, as such order was passed to proceed ex parte against respondent Nos. 2 to 10 of election petition. In election petition, Ajit Pal Singh, Dhrmendra Pal Singh and Jitendra Pal Singh were examined and cross examined. In the present case Prescribed Authority while proceeding to decide issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 has proceeded to mention as to whether in the facts of the case recounting can be done or not. Thereafter case of the election petitioner has been noted that as per election petitioner he had received 412 votes and similarly the elected candidate had also received 412 votes, and then the Prescribed Authority has proceeded to mention that in paragraph 3 of the. election petition it has been mentioned that the agent of elected candidate in collusion with A.R.O. took out three ballots, put of which two were declared invalid and one was accepted as valid, and then application was moved on 28.08.2005, but no orders were passed on the same and they proceeded to declare the result, which appears to be suspicious and as such it cannot be accepted. Further no reason has been given for declaring two ballots invalid, and further no reason has been given as to why lottery system was not adopted, when equal votes had been polled. At this juncture, present writ petition in question has been filed.

(3.) Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged. Apart from this, original record has also been summoned,