KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. ISRAR AHMAD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Etah in Election Petition No. 6 of 2006 by which the review application filed by the election petitioner-respondent No. 1 Israr Ahmad was allowed.

(2.) The dispute in the present application arises out of the election held for the post of Chairman/Nagar Palika Parishad, Soron, district Etah (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad ). The applicant Kailash Chandra was declared elected as Chairman of the Parishad. On 4.12.2006 Israr Ahmad preferred Election Petition No. 6 of 2006 under the provisions of Section 19/20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was alleged in the election petition that the names of many persons were entered at two places in the electoral rolls of the same ward and names of many persons were also entered in the electoral rolls of two wards and that both the aforesaid categories of persons had cast their vote twice. It was, therefore, alleged that in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 13-E of the Act, the votes of such persons would be void and if such votes are not counted then the election petitioner would be declared elected. The details of such persons were specifically mentioned in paragraph 18 of the election petition. During the pendency of the election petition two applications bearing Nos. (25-C) and (26-C) were moved by the election petitioner on 21.7.2007 and 28.7.2007 respectively. The application (25-C) was moved for summoning the marked electoral rolls of ward Nos. 4,5,6,8,13,14,17,18,20,22,23 and 25 from the District Magistrate Etah. In application (26-C) filed by the election petitioner it was stated that in support of application (25-C) the election petitioner was filing certified copy of the election results as well as the copy of the electoral rolls supplied to the election petitioner by the election office. It was further stated that from the electoral rolls supplied to the election petitioner, it would be clear that the names of many persons were entered twice in the electoral rolls of the same ward and the names of many persons were also contained in the electoral rolls of two wards. It was, therefore, prayed that the earlier application (25-C) that had been filed by the election petitioner for summoning the marked electoral rolls be allowed.

(3.) The applicant filed objections to the aforesaid two applications asserting that there was no need to summon the marked electoral rolls as they were not required for the disposal of the election petition. It was further asserted that it would not be possible to ascertain from the marked electoral rolls as to in whose favour the persons had cast their votes and in any case the objections about the electoral rolls should have been raised prior to the preparation of the electoral rolls.