ANOOP SINGH Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri K.S. Singh and Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri P.K. Shahi for the respondent No. 1. Learned standing counsel represents respondent No. 2.

(2.) This first appeal under Rule 49 of U.P. Kshetra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007, passed by District Judge/Election Tribunal, Banda. By the impugned judgment and order, the election held on 27.2.2006, as a result of which Anoop Singh was elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Mahua, district Banda has been declared as null and void and the election petition of Ranjeet Singh was allowed and he was declared to be legally elected Pramukh of the aforesaid block.

(3.) The election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Mahua, district Banda was held on 27.2.2006 and Anoop Singh, the appellant, was declared elected and was administered the oath of office on 18.3.2006. Being aggrieved Ranjeet Singh had filed an election petition, registered as Election Petition No. 39 of 2006 of the aforementioned Rules of 1994. The said election was challenged on various grounds, indicated in the memo of petition, which is on record. Initially, the Election Officer counted 42 votes in favour of Anoop Singh and 41 in favour of Ranjeet Singh. As a result of this, Anoop Singh was declared elected. In the election petition specific grounds were taken that five votes were wrongly rejected/declared invalid, His valid votes were wrongly included in the votes of the petitioner Anoop Singh in counting. All these allegations have been denied in the written statement filed by Assistant Election Officer, respondent No. 2. Anoop Singh has also filed cross-objections alongwith written statement indicating therein that the candidature of Ranjeet Singh was itself illegal, who was resident of Attara not of Mahua. Other infirmities in his candidature were pointed out. During the course of disposal of the election petition, an application was filed on 24.5.2006 for summoning the ballot papers and for recounting on the same day. Twenty five issues were framed covering the disputes. It is relevant to mention that on 17.4.2006, the Election Tribunal had accepted the service report and directed to proceed ex parte against Anoop Singh, the elected candidate. A Writ Petition No. 31545 of 2006, Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P., was filed by Ranjeet Singh, respondent No. 1 seeking expeditious disposal of the election petition. This Court vide judgment and order dated 7.6.2006 issued directions that the election petition be disposed of within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment. The application to recall the order dated 17.4.2006 filed on 3.7.2006 was allowed after hearing the election petitioner on 5.7.2006 and additional issues were framed on 15.7.2006. Initially, the matter was being dealt with by the Additional District Judge and amendment in the written statement in making counter-claim, challenging the candidature of Ranjeet Singh as Member of Kshetra Panchayat was sought and it was allowed. A transfer application was filed in this Court to transfer the election petition out of district Banda. It was dismissed on 29.7.2006. However, the election proceedings continues. The Ist Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal, Banda, had passed an order dated 26.3.2007 for recounting of votes on the ground that the parties have examined the witnesses and have led the evidence with regard to allegations in the writ petition and the recount of votes. A Writ Petition No. 19627 of 2007, Anoop Singh v. Ranjeet Singh and Ors. was filed in this Court on several grounds that the learned Addl. District Judge had not discussed the evidence at all and has directed the recount causing serious prejudice to Anoop Singh, petitioner in that case. The counsel of Shri Ranjeet Singh relying upon several judgments in Dileep v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2000 Supp1 JT 289 ; Shobh Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors.,1999 1 AllWC 451 and Smt. Saroj Sharma v. Smt. Imarta Saini and Ors.,2000 ACJ 1124 , in support of his submissions and has submitted that where there are clear and specified pleadings and that entire case depends upon improper rejection of votes in favour of the election petitioner and illegal and improper acceptance of votes in favour of the returned candidates, the order may be passed without discussing the evidence.