HARI SINGH Vs. RAMJAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the first respondent were the two candidates for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Nainkhera at the last general elections held on 15-12-1955. There were more than one polling places, but whether there were two only or more is not clear. The petitioner secured a majority of votes and was declared elected on 7-1-1956. Ramjas, the first respondent, filed an application questioning the petitioner's election under Sec. 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. In this application he challenged the petitioner's election on a number of grounds, including the ground that the election return of ward No. 2 had been tampered with by altering the figures of votes recorded in favour of the two contestants. He claimed that he had received 135 votes while Hari Singh, the petitioner in this court had received 114 only. He says that these figures were changed to 125 and 124 respectively. There were allegations against the Presiding Officer also and against the Panchayat Secretary as well. On behalf of the petitioner, so far as the allegation with respect to tampering of the polling return of ward No. 2 was concerned, the reply was that the same had been done by Ramjas himself subsequently after the results were declared and the election petition had been filed.

(2.) The application filed by Ramjas was not verified. Therefore another ground urged on behalf of Hari Singh, the petitioner, was that the same required to be verified under the law and in the absence of the verification the application was invalid. On the objection of Hari Singh to the above effect Ramjas seemed to have approached the SDO to permit him to verify the application. The SDO granted his request. One of the grounds which were taken by Hari Singh before the SDO and which has been repeated here also was that no amendment of the petition could be made at that stage.

(3.) The SDO did not accept the objections urged on behalf of Hari Singh. He, on the other hand, found that the election return in respect of ward No. 2 had been tampered. He therefore by his order dated 31-5-1956 set aside Hari Singh's election and declared a casual vacancy. Against the above order of the SDO Hari Singh has come up to this Court by his present petition u/Art. 226 and the relief prayed for is that the order be quashed. The grounds urged in support are that the election petition was not entertainable as it was not duly verified, that the SDO had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the petition, that the finding of the SDO about tampering was improper and that even after his finding that there was tampering in the polling return of ward No. 2 the course open to him was to order a repoll at the polling station and not, as he did, to set aside the election as a whole. Some other grounds urged were that the SDO failed to examine certain witnesses, that he acted illegally in refusing to take down evidence and, lastly, that an Additional SDO has no jurisdiction to hear the petition. But none of these grounds were urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner at the time of the hearing.