MADHAV UPENDRA TALAULICAR Vs. YASHWANT SITARAM DESSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the general elections to the legislative assembly for the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu held on 28th of March 1967 the respondent No. 1 Shri Yeshwant Sitaram Desai of this election petition was declared elected from the Constituency. The other candidates from that constituency were the election-petitioner Shri M.S. Talaulicar and respondents Nos. 2 to 9. The respondent No. 10 Shri B.F. Bhandari was the Returning Officer for that constituency. The petitioner polled 3776 votes which were closest to 3844 votes polled by the successful candidate, the margin being of only 70. Shri M.S. Talaulicar filed the instant petition with the prayers that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared to be void, that instead he be declared as having been duly elected to the Legislative Assembly, and that in the alternative this Court should direct a recount of the votes polled at the election and declare the petitioner duly elected if on recount he is proved to have polled a majority of the votes cast. The prayer that election of respondent No. 1 was void was founded on the allegations that the electoral registers had not been prepared in compliance with the provisions of the law, that petitions made to the Electoral Registration Officer for amending the rolls were rejected on untenable grounds, and that the Returning Officer (respondent No. 10) had illegally rejected two applications made by the petitioner, one for recount of votes and the other for recount of the bundles prepared on counting of the votes. In rejecting these two applications, it was said further, the Returning Officer had violated the statutory provisions enshrined in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, hereinafter called the Rules.

(2.) The election petition was opposed by respondent No. 1 who pleaded that respondent No. 10 had been improperly impleaded as a party, that the persons who had signed the petition as M.S. Talaulicar was neither a candidate nor a voter for the Panjim Constituency and so he is incompetent to challenge the election of respondent No. 1, that the election petition and the annexures thereto had not been verified in the manner required by law and that his election is not liable to challenge on the grounds set out in the petition.

(3.) Respondent No. 10 alleged in his written statement that the electoral roll had been prepared in terms of the prescribed rule and the provisions of the relevant law and that he had rejected the applications of the petitioner for recounting of the votes and the bundles because there was no justification for making such a prayer.