ASHARAM PARASTE Vs. OM PRAKASH, M.LA.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and respondent were candidates in Assembly election held in February, 1990 in Bajag Consitutency, tehsil Dindori, District Mandla M.P. The Petitioner polled 8091 while the respondent 14439 votes. Beside the petitioner and the respondent, there were 10 other candidates. Details of votes polled by each are not material for disposal of the petition. The respondent was declared elected. One of the grounds on which the petitioner challenges his election is that the District Election Officer set up Polling Stations in disobedience of instructions of the Election Commission. The relevant excerpts from the Instructions is reproduced below :

(2.) THE other ground is that the respondent is not a doctor either of Allopathic, Ayurvedic or Homeopathic system of medicines and yet he declared himself to be a doctor and thus better qualified than any other candidate. He repeated every where his promise to treat the Advasi voters free of cost for their ailments. He has neither passed any MBBS examination nor any other examination of other system of medicines, he got printed and published or caused to be printed and published, election pamphlets or handbills like Annexures -P -3, 4 and 5. None these pamphlets bears the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof. No declaration as to the identity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he was personally known, was delivered by him to the printer in duplicate nor one copy of any such declaration was sent by the printer together with one copy of the document, to the District Magistrate of Narsinghpur or Mandla. Thereby an offence under section 127 -A was committed. Though the offence aforesaid does not by itself amount to corrupt practice, it rendered the election of respondent void under item (iv) of clause (d) of section 100 of the Act, as the result of election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected.

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that a large number of ballot papers as given in final election result in Form -20, were rejected on arbitrary grounds, without writing any reason for such rejection on the ballot papers which renders the election void. Majority of such rejected voters should have been counted as having been validly cast in favour of the petitioner.