SUSHIL SINGH Vs. PRABHU NARAIN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election petition filed by Sri Sushil Singh In person before Registrar General of the Court of 6.2.2002 challenges the election of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav, for member of the Legislative Assembly, U.P. of constituency No. 221 Dhanapur, District Chandauli. The petitioner has prayed for declaring the election of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav-Respondent no. 1 as illegal; to conduct re-polling at Booth Nos. 291 and 292; to direct the respondents to recount the votes and to declare the petitioner as duly elected.

(2.) The averments in the election petition filed under Section 80 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 are that by a notification dated 26.12.2001 the elections of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly were declared. The programme of election included the beginning of nominations on 16.1.2002: close of nominations on 23.1.2002; scrutiny of nominations on 24.1.2002 and withdrawal of the nominations paper on 28.1.2002. The polling was fixed on 21.2.2001, and 24.2.2002 was fixed for counting and declaration of result. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and ground Nos. (b) and (e) of the election relevant fo r the purposes of this petition are quoted as below;

(3.) The election petitioner alleges in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 that he was declared as winner by margin of 286 votes but on the request of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav-respondent no. 1, the declaration was stopped and re-totalling took place. After re-totalling the election petitioner was declared winner by margin of 135 votes. The petitioner sent fax messages and telephone calls and news papers published victory of the petitioner, On the direction of the District Returning Officer and in collusion with respondent no. 1, re-totalling took place for the third time and this time also the petitioner was declared winner by margin of 36 votes over respondent no. 1, but then the re-totalling was ordered for the fourth time, against which the petitioner sent written complaint to Chief Election Commissioner but without considering the objections of the petitioner, the District Returning Officer announced the result declaring respondent no. 1 to have won over the petitioner by a margin of 26 votes. This plea, however, was lateron given up and no issue was framed on the question of re-totalling of votes.