ANUPAMA SAMAL Vs. KUNJA BIHARI PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTION to the office of Sarpanch, Mahakalapada Gram Panchayat under Bari Block in the District of Jajpur was held on 17.02.2007. The writ petitioner, opposite party No.1 and one Amit Kumar Parida filed their nomination papers. The candidates were allotted symbols. The result of the election was declared on 22.02.2007. The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Mahakalapada Gram Panchayat. The opposite party No.1 filed Election Misc. Case No.18 of 2007 contending therein that 28 number of valid votes, which were cast in his favour in booth No.10 had been illegally rejected. The said 28 ballot papers cast in favour of the oppo site party No.1 were unevenly torned on the upper side of the margin and the Election Officer improperly rejected the said valid votees, which affected the result of the election. The opposite party No.1, therefore, prayed to declare the election of the petitioner to the Office to the Office of the Sarpanch as invalid.

(2.) THE petitioner filed her written statement contending, inter alia, that on recounting of the ballot papers, it was found that she (petitioner) got more votes than the opposite party No.1 and was declared elected, inasmuch as, there is no illegality committed in declaring her as the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) MR . P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the allegation of the petitioner in the election petition that the disputed 28 ballot papers should not have been rejected as invalid votes is not tenable in view of the fact that the Election Officer as P.W.3 categorically stated that in his presence and under his supervision the seals over the ballot papers were opened prior to recounting. The seal of ballot papers packet was, in tact, in respect of all the 11 booths and at the time of recounting, he noticed that some ballot papers without the seal and signature of the Presiding Officer were found in respect of the booth No.10. He checked the ballot papers and found that 28 ballot papers, which were without seal and signature of the Presiding Officer and without distinguishing marks, were allowed by the Presiding Officer for which he rejected those 28 ballot papers. Mr. Kar further submitted that the learned Election Tribunal categorically arrived at a finding of fact that the above 28 number of ballot papers did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer at all and the seal of the Presiding Officer was not available in any of the said ballot papers. In some of the ballot papers, the portion of the seal of the Presiding Officer was available. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the said 28 ballot papers which did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer cannot be treated as valid ballot papers.