SHAMIM KHAN Vs. ADIL HUSAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the decision of the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer dated 27.07.2012 under Sec. 12 -C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') and the Revising Authority/District Judge dated 07.12.2012 under Sec. 12 -C(6) of the Act, 1947 dismissing the election petition of the petitioner questioning the election of opposite party No. 1 as Gram Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Parewa Narainpur, Vikas Khand, Pargana and Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh.

(2.) The election for the post of Gram Pradhan referred to hereinabove was held in the year 2010. The opposite party No. 1 is said to have secured 624 votes whereas the petitioner herein is said to have secured 521 votes. Apart from these two there were four other candidates who had secured 03,03,50, and 9 votes respectively. Thus, the votes secured by 5 loosing candidates including the petitioner totaled 586 votes whereas the opposite party No. 1 the winning candidate secured 624 votes and was declared as elected.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned under Section12 -C(1) read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1994') alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. Para 4 of the election petition alleged that the seal of ballot boxes was found broken and he protested in this regard but was silenced by coercion. In paragraph 5 it was stated that counting personnel connived with the opposite party No. 1. The valid votes of the petitioners were declared invalid and invalid votes of opposite party No. 1 were counted as valid votes. In paragraphs 6 and 7 it was alleged that the petitioner was shown as having secured zero vote at booth No. 196, though, the said booth pertained to the area where he resides, therefore, securing of zero vote was clearly unacceptable as there were other members of his family residing in that very area who cast their votes at the said booth. His votes were added in the votes of Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan i.e. another candidate. In fact the petitioner had secured 105 votes at the said booth but they were not mentioned in the counting sheet against his name. In paragraph 8 of the election petition it was alleged that one of the candidates namely; Sri Dinesh Giri had secured only 4 votes at booth No. 197 but in order to defeat the petitioner 43 votes were shown as having been polled in favour of Sri Dinesh Giri thereby materially affecting the petitioner's election. In para 9 of the election petition it was stated that the opposite party No. 1 i.e. winning candidate Sri Adil Hussain secured 91 votes at booth No. 194 but 100 votes which had been polled in favour of the petitioner were added to the votes of opposite party No. 1 illegally. In paragraph 10 it was stated that 26 valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner had been declared as invalid. In paragraph 11 it was stated that the opposite party No. 5 had secured only 154 votes at booth No. 197 and opposite party No. 1 secured 147 votes but 150 votes secured by Sri Dinesh Giri opposite party No. 5 were illegally added in favour of votes polled in favour of opposite party No. 1. The counting sheet bore cutting and the same had been tampered with.