MUNESH DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the elected Pradhan having won by 21 votes. The petitioner received 410 votes whereas the contesting respondent received 389 votes. The defeated candidate, being aggrieved by the result of the election, filed an election petition alleging that 13 votes were cast by those persons who were actually dead and that 36 votes were cast by such persons who were not the resident of the village in question. On this premise, the defeated candidate contended that if these votes are excluded, the result would be that he would get elected instead of the petitioner. The allegations made in para 7 of the election petition were not supported or accompanied by any documentary proof. Consequently, these allegations were required to be proved by way of oral and/or documentary evidence. Prior to the evidence being led, the defeated candidate's application for inspection of the ballot papers was allowed by an order dated 7.2.2013. The order of inspection was passed on the basis of certain affidavits filed by certain persons reiterating the contention raised by the defeated candidate in his election petition and, on that basis, the Tribunal held that a prima facie case was made out for the inspection of the ballot papers.

(2.) The elected candidate, being aggrieved by this order, filed the present writ petition questioning the veracity of the order in seeking inspection of the ballot papers and in disturbing the secrecy and purity of the election. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order dated 14.2.2013 directing the Election Tribunal to continue with the proceedings but restrained the Tribunal from passing any final orders. It transpires that the Tribunal proceeded to inspect the ballot papers and finding no major irregularity, passed an order for recounting of the ballot papers. This order was passed on an application moved by the defeated candidate on the same date. It transpires that the recounting was done on 16.2.2013 in which it was depicted that the defeated candidate secured more votes than the petitioner. The order of 16.2.13 has also been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition by moving an amendment application which has already been allowed.

(3.) Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Akram, the learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and learned standing counsel for the State.