UDAIBHAN SINGH Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Sri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for respondent no.1.

(2.) Since the controversy relates between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and other respondents are proforma respondents, coupled with the fact that no factual controversy is involved in the present writ petition and considering the urgency in the matter, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit.

(3.) The elections for the post of a member of Zila Panchayat was held, in which the petitioner secured 4948 votes whereas respondent no.1 secured 4263 votes. The petitioner was elected by 685 votes. Respondent no.1 filed an election petition contending that in fact he should have been declared elected as a member of the Zila Panchayat as he had won the election by 123 votes and that he had secured 4993 votes and that the petitioner had secured 4870 votes but the authorities and the agents of the petitioner by manipulation, wrongly recorded the figures in Form no.11, as a result of which, the final declaration shown was that the petitioner was declared elected and the respondent no.1 was shown to have lost the election.