TARIF GIRI Vs. ADDITIONAL SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a returned candidate, challenge the legality of orders dated 27th Dec. 1982 and 4th July, 1984, passed by the Election Tribunal in an election petition, which is pending its consideration.

(2.) The petitioner was duly elected as Pradhan of a certain Gaon Sabha. Sarvasri Vijai Pal Singh and Tulsi Singh, respondents no. 4 and 5 respectively, were the other candidates in the field. The respondent no. 4 had challenged the legality of the election by means of an election petition, on 27th Dec., 1982, till which date the parties had not led any evidence, the Election Tribunal by an order directed the inspection of ballot papers. This order was challenged by means of a revision by the petitioner and the Revisional Court on 15th Sept., 1983, dismissed the revision us incompetent. However, it made certain observations to the effect that the Election Tribunal had passed the order directing an inspection of ballot papers without applying his mind to the relevant law. Thereafter, parties led oral evidence before the Election Tribunal. At the close of the evidence, an application was again made by and on behalf of the respondent no. 4 seeking the inspection of ballot papers and on that application the order dated 4th July, 1984 has been passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforementioned two orders on the grounds that the same were passed without any application of mind, is to be noted that the difference of votes between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 is 11. We have gone to rough both the orders. The last order is based on the earlier order. In the earlier order it is recited that the Panchat Raj officer had submitted a report to the effect that record containing the account of the number of votes cast at the election and the number of votes actually polled by the various candidates was not available.