MANOHAR GOPAL NAIK Vs. SUBHASH ANKUSH SHIRODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS petition is filed challenging the election of respondent No. 1 who was returned successfully from 23-Shiroda Assembly Constituency of Goa State which was conducted on 16th November, 1994. The petitioner was one of the contesting candidates for the said Election in 23-Shiroda Assembly Constituency. In all, 8 candidates had contested in that Constituency. These candidates were allotted symbols by the Returning Officer as shown in Form 7-A of Rule 10 (1) of the Conduct of Election Rules. The petitioners name was shown at Serial No. 4 as candidate for B. J. P. and who was allotted symbol of Lotus. The respondent No. 1 was shown in the list of candidates at Serial No. 3 as candidate whose party name is shown as Indian National Congress and the allotted symbol of Hand. In this petition, the petitioner prays, inter alia, as follows :---

(2.) THEREFORE, the main reliefs sought in this petition in substance is for a re-counting of ballot papers. In the poll, the respondent No. 1 polled 6256 valid votes whereas the petitioner polled 6154 valid votes, thereby the 1st respondent was declared as elected by a margin of 102 votes. Evidently, therefore, in order to succeed in this petition, the petitioner should plead and establish that there were irregularities in counting of votes, that certain identifiable number of votes in certain tables were miscounted and had there been no such miscounting, the petitioner would have been declared elected. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing his case, first of all, the petitioner should allege specifically and precisely regarding the details of misconduct pointing out specific instances of irregularities which have been committed in the course of counting of the votes. However, I shall deal with this aspect of the case in the latter part of this judgment in more detail.

(3.) ALL the contesting candidates have been made parties to this petition. Except the 1st respondent, no other respondents filed Written Statement in this case. In fact, the other respondents, namely respondents Nos. 2 to 7, were set ex parte by this Court by its Order dated 28-7-1995. The 1st respondent filed his Written Statement denying the allegations contained in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :