LAWS(ALL)-1989-1-2

SATISH CHAND Vs. SATYA PRAKASH

Decided On January 18, 1989
SATISH CHAND Appellant
V/S
SATYA PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under S.81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act, 1951), the petitioner who unsuccessfully contested the election seeks a declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 who was declared elected as member of the Legislative Assembly from 358 Agra East Assembly Constituency, Agra, be declared void and seeks additional declaration that he be declared duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly from the said constituency instead. The election of the respondent No. 1 is said to be void mainly on the grounds that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the respondent No. 1 was materially affected by wrongly transposing the entries in Form 20 from Form 16 Part II and thereby reducing the total number of the votes of the petitioner from those actually received by him. In para 34 of the petition, correctness of the counting has not been assailed. It is averred that the counting was properly done and the entries in Form 16 Part II were made on the basis of the correct counting, but the grievance of the petitioner is that while incorporating the entries in consolidated Form 20 from Form 16 Part II, mistakes were made causing defeat of the petitioner. It is contended that if correct entries were made in Form 20 from Form 16 Part II, then the petitioner would have received majority of valid votes and he would have been declared as elected in place of the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 alone filed written statement contending that he was rightly declared elected. He also contended in Para 26 of the written statement that the entries were not correctly made in Form 16 Part II, inasmuch as the votes polled for the petitioner were inflated in Form 16 Part II to give undue advantage to him. He also assailed the correctness of the counting and scrutiny of the ballot papers. In para 30 of the written statement, the respondent No. 1 reiterated that a large number of invalid ballot papers had been improperly counted as valid votes for the petitioner and a large number of valid votes cast in his (respondent No. 1) favour had been improperly rejected as invalid He also averred that his votes were mixed up with the votes of the petitioner and had been illegally counted for the latter's advantage.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 14-4-1987 :