BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basn, J. This writ petition has been filed by Balwant Singh with the prayer that respondents be commanded to resume the poll from the stage it was postponed and also that a mandamus should issue declaring Rule 31 of the Rules null and void and the added reliefs do not require any special mention at this stage.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner Balwant Singh and three others, namely, Smt. Raj Bala, Sri Rajendra Singh and Smt. Suman were the four candidates for the Office of Adhyaksh Zila Panchayat, Hardwar which was held on 22-5-1995. Bereft of the details of events which happened on 22-5-1995, the relevant fact to be stated is that the polling began and nine voters had already exercised their franchise when some commotion took place as a result of which a large crowd intervened, came inside the polling booth and the Returning Officer closed the polling and postponed it to a future date to be fixed. THE Returning Officer in his turn informed the State Election Commission. In paragraph No. 18 of the writ petition the specific averment of the petitioner is that he had sent a Fax message to the Election Commis sion and also to the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and that the said Fax message was despatched dated 1. 05 p. m. on 22-5-1995, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. It transpires that by letter dated 27-5-1995 the Election Commission through its letter No. 1010 Ra.-Ni.-Aa.-Anu.-5/95 called upon the District Election Officer (District Magistrate) Hardwar to fix a date for repelling and intimate the Election Commission on priority basis the said date. THE aforesaid letter has been filed as CA-8 to the counter affidavit filed by one Sri R. V. Dinkar who was Assistant District Election Officer ID Hardwar in the Paochayat Elections of 1995. THE relevant averments concerning Annexure-CA 1 exist in paragraph No. 28 of the said counter affidavit which have been replied by the petitioner in paragraph No. 31 ot" h> 6 first rejoinder affidavit by a general statement that the averments in paragraph No, 28 of the counter affidavit are not admitted.

(3.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that those nine votes which had already been polled should be retained and the maximum that is possible on the facts and circumstances of the present case is that the whole polling should be taken to be adjourned polling and, there fore, the votes to be cast on the adjourned date should be after those nine votes, i. e. , it should begin from 10th onward. It may be mentioned that it is not denied that there are only 16 member voters who will cast votes in exercise of their right to vote for the office of Adhyaksh, Zila Panchayat Hardwar. Readily it should be recorded here that these elections were htid under the provisions of U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short, the Act) and that concerning election of two members the election petitions have been filed in which some interim orders have been passed and those voters had some rigor on the said exercise of their right. The aforesaid matter is neither being touched here nor should be adverted to because the election petitions which were pending then may be taken to challenge still further as the State Election Commissioner has informed the Court that those two election petitions have been dismissed. Therefore, no further observation requires to be made. It may be mentioned that regarding the state of affairs at the polling, reference has been made to the F. I. R. as also the detailed report of the Returning Officer by both sides counsel.