RAM SHANKER Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election for the post of Pradhan, Gaon Sabha Manikapur, Block Asoha, district Unnao, was held on 21 -6 -82. On 24 -6 -1982 after counting of votes, the result of the election was declared by the Nirvachan Adhikari, vide order, annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Petitioner Ram Shanker secured 187 votes, while the runner up was Kesha opp. party No. 5 who secured 179 votes. Two other contestants secured 30 and 13 votes respectively. They are opposite parties 6 and 7. On 4 -7 -82 the District Magistrate purporting to act Under Rule 21 -G passed an order, annexure 3, to the effect that as the polling had been incomplete because of shortage of ballet papers at the polling centre No. 55, Primary School, Manikapur, there would be repoll in respect of that polling centre alone on 12th July, 82. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner rushed to this Court and filed this petition on 9th July, 82 and obtained a stay order. The petition has been contested by opposite party No. 5 who has filed a counter affidavit. Opposite party No. 7 had also put in appearance through Counsel, but has not appeared today before us. Opposite party No. 6 does not appear to have been served, but it does not appear necessary to postpone the hearing of the petition on that account. He appears not to be interested in the result of the petition because he must have been aware of the pendency of the petition as a stay order in regard to the operation of the District Magistrate's order, annexure 3, was issued by this Court and must have come to the notice of everyone concerned.

(2.) We are assuming for the purposes of this petition that the ground on which re -poll was ordered was factually correct, namely, that there was a shortage of ballot papers at the polling centre No. 55 on account of which a large number of voters were deprived of their right to exercise franchise.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Annexure 1 purports to have been issued Under Rule 21 -G. Actually the contents and the language of the order show that this has been issued not merely Under Rule 21 -G, but also under rules 21 -G and 21 -R. The title of the proforma is not conclusive of the nature of the document. We have to look to the document in the context of the relevant provisions and to relate it to the provisions under which it could and should have been issued. There is a specific declaration of the Petitioner as having been elected to the office of Pradhan. This declaration is signed by the Nirvachan Adhikari. It is followed by an endorsement to the District Magistrate for information and also to the Secretary of Gaon Sabha. This declaration of result falls Under Rule 21 -Q, while the report of the result to the District Magistrate and information to the Secretary of Gaon Sabha falls Under Rule 21 -R.