LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-26

DHARAM PAL YADAV Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Decided On February 03, 1998
DHARAM PAL YADAV Appellant
V/S
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the Election Commission dated 28-2-1998 whereby the petitioner's representation dated 24-2-1998 praying for re- poll has been rejected, and for a direction to the respondents to cancel the polling of the polling stations mentioned in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, and for a further direction to hold repoll of the said polling stations at the earliest before recounting begins in nine Sambhal Parliamentary Constituencies, of District Moradabad.

(2.) IT appears that the election was held for the aforesaid Parliamentary Constituency on 22-2-1998 from 7-00 a. m. to 5 p. m. The main contest was between the petitioner, Shri Dharam Pal Yadav and respondent No. 3, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav. In the writ petition various allegations have been made in paragraph Nos. 7 to 17 of the writ petition as well as in the Supplementary affidavit regarding alleged malpractices and illegalities committed by the respondent No. 3 or his men. The petitioner made a representation in this connection to the Election Commission on 24-2-1998. The petitioner also filed a writ petition before Delhi High court on 26-2-1998 and when that writ petition came up for hearing on 28-2-1998 the learned counsel for the Election Commission brought to the notice of the said Court that the Election Commission has rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he has not been given a copy of the order of the Election Commission rejecting his representation. IT was further contended that the petitioner was not given a hearing by the Election Commission. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of these allegations as we have not called for any counter affidavit.

(3.) MR. Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the ground for adjournment of poll under S. 57 of the said Act is not available under S. 100 since under S. 57 of the said Act the polls can be adjourned at the instance of any party. We are not agreeable with this submission. All these grounds are available to the petitioner by way of election petition.