MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SAUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. Under challenge is the judgment and order of the District Judge dated 30. 7. 2007 passed in Election Petition No. 3/70 of 2006, Mohd. Saud v. Manoj Kumar and another, by which the election petition was allowed, the election of Manoj Kumar as Pramukh, Kshetriya Panchayat Mooratganj, district Kaushambi was set aside and Mohd. Saud was declared elected in his place.

(2.) THE appellant Manoj Kumar and the respondent No. 1 Mohd. Saud both contested elections for the post of Pramukh, Kshetriya Panchayat Mooratganj as Other Backward Class (hereinafter in short OBC) candidates. THE elections to the said post were held on 27. 2. 2007. All the 79 members of the Kshetriya Panchayat voted. Counting was done on the same evening. Three (3) ballot papers were rejected as invalid. Thus only 76 valid ballot papers remained for counting. On counting both the candidates secured 38 votes each and as such there was a tie. Accordingly, a lottery was drawn. On the basis of lottery respondent No. 1 Mohd. Saud was allegedly declared winner. However, the Assistant Returning Officer (in short ARO) with his report submitted the entire ballot papers to the Returning Officer/district Magistrate (in short RO/dm) at the Vikas Bhawan Manjhanpur district Kaushambi. THE RO/dm undertook recounting and found that out of the 38 votes polled by the respondent No. 1 Mohd. Saud two were invalid but were counted wrongly in his favour. On recounting therefore, the appellant Manoj Kumar was found to have secured 38 votes whereas respondent No. 1 Mohd. Saud 36 votes. Thus with the consent of the observer appointed by the State Election Commission the appellant Manoj Kumar was finally declared as elected.

(3.) THE Court decided issues No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 together and held that the ARO was a competent person to declare the election result for and on behalf of the RO/dm. Once he has declared the election result in accordance with Rule 29 and has filled up Form VIII, the RO/dm has become functus officio so as to order a recount or to recount the ballot papers and to declare the other candidate as having won. THE result declared by the ARO does not get affected by the alleged circular dated 25. 2. 2006 issued by the Additional Commissioner State Election Commission U. P. , Lucknow.