MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. II ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order of the Election Tribunal trying an election petition under Section 7 of the Kshettra Samits and Zila Parishads Act against the election of Block Pramukh. An application was moved by the Respondent who challenged the election of the Petitioner Mahendra Singh, for inspection of rejected ballot papers. According to the election Petitioner, three ballot papers in which vote had been cast of first preference in favour of Babu Lal, the election Petitioner, had been wrongly rejected. The ballot papers which had been rejected were six in number. According to Babu Lal, two of the ballot papers were wrongly rejected because there was no line at the top and the marking could be made at a place above the line in which the Petitioner's name was written. In respect of another ballot paper the case was that there was over -writing or mutilation. In respect of this one he had given the number of the ballot paper also. As regards the first two, he had not given the numbers. The winning candidate raised objections. The objections were overruled by the Election Tribunal and inspection was permitted. The present petition has been filed challenging that order.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the material facts necessary for permitting inspection had not been given in the election petition and hence the order of the Election Tribunal was erroneous in law. According to him, one of the most important material fact was the number of the ballot paper. The submission is that the election Petitioner could have at the time of counting noted down the number of the ballot paper and supplied particulars. No other material fact has been pointed out which may have been omitted from being mentioned in the election petition. The election petition discloses the cause and the facts which had led to the rejection of the ballot papers, this is the particular required to be disclosed.

(3.) THE basic reason for not permitting inspection of ballot papers is the preservation of secrecy of election. Secrecy of the election in respect of rejected ballot papers can be violated only if they are connected with the marked electoral list. If it is not so connected, it is not possible to find out as to who had cast the vote which had been rejected. The Respondent who was the election Petitioner had not claimed the inspection of the marked electoral roll. Learned Counsel for him in this Court has also made a statement that he does not wish to get the ballot papers connected with the marked electoral rolls. There can thus be no violation of secrecy of election if the inspection is permitted.