NEETA GURUDAS NATEKAR Vs. VAISHALI FALARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 13-4-2006 passed by the second Additional District Judge, North Goa Panaji in Election Petition No. 1 of 2005.

(2.) A few facts leading to the filing of this petition may be shortly stated. Elections for Mapusa Municipal Council for the year 2005-2010 were declared by Goa State Election Commission. The petitioner filed her nomination papers from Ward No. 10 which was reserved for women. The petitioners nomination was accepted. She appointed her husband Gurudas Natekar as her election agent. The elections were held on 23/10/05. The election results were announced on 24/10/05. The petitioner lost the said election by a slim margin of 9 votes to respondent 1 Vaishali Falari. Vaishali Falari was declared elected. On account of the slim margin the petitioners election agent made an application before the Returning Officer for recounting and it was granted. Recounting was done and after recounting the margin between the petitioner and respondent 1 was reduced to one vote. The petitioner secured 645 votes and Vaishali Falari secured 646 votes. The petitioner again asked for a recounting but the prayer was rejected. On 25/10/05, the petitioners election agent made an application for certified copies of certain documents. According to the petitioner the Returning Officer gave certified copies of Form-14 which was the result sheet after recounting and Form-15 which was the return of the election after recounting. The petitioners case is that on perusal of the said Forms it was clear that there were some major discrepancies in the total number of votes for polling booth Nos. 16 Part and 17 Part. The petitioner, therefore, filed Election Petition No. 1/2005 before the Municipal Election Tribunal, Panaji-Goa, for a declaration that election of respondent 1 Vaishali Falari in pursuance to elections held on 23/10/2005 from Ward No. 10 of the Mapusa Municipal Council be declared null and void and for a declaration that the petitioner is the duly elected candidate. The petitioner also prayed for an order of recounting of the counted ballot papers by the Returning Officer in respect of Ward No. 10 at polling station Nos. 16 Part and 17 Part.

(3.) IN the said petition the petitioner made an application for production of documents under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C. for short) read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. In the application the petitioner stated that the said documents are described in the list of documents annexed to the plaint. They are relied upon documents. They are in possession of Shri Dashrath Redkar, the Returning Officer, who is the witness of the petitioner and who was summoned by the court. The petitioner prayed that summons be issued to Shri Dashrath Redkar for production of the said documents. The documents of which production was sought are as under: (1) Marked copies of the List of Voters of Ward No. 10 in part 16 and 17. (2) Application for recount dated 24/10/2005 filed by the election agent of the petitioner. (3) Ballot papers in favour of the Petitioner which were rejected by the said Returning Officer. (4) Certified electoral roll of Ward No. 10. Respondent 1 opposed the said application by filing her reply.