BIBHUTI NAYAK Vs. BASANATA MANJARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal puts to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.2.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1960 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge interfering with the order dated 18.1.2013 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in Election Misc. Case No. 72 of 2012, thus limiting the appellant's prayer to recount the ballot papers of Ward No. 3 of Nuagaon Grama Panchayat only solar it pertained to the election of Member to the Basudevpur Panchayat Samiti. We have heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant (opposite party in the writ petition) and Mr. K.B. Panda, learned counsel for the Respondent (petitioner in the writ petition).

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal record that the parties herein had contested for the seat of Member to the Basudevpur Panchayat Samiti from Nuagaon Grama Panchayat and eventually the respondent herein was elected. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 44 -A of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (hereinafter called in short 'Act') challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of illegal rejection of votes and improper acceptance of votes in favour of the returned candidate. This petition was registered as Election Misc. Case No. 72 of 2012. On the basis of the averments made in the election petition, she asserted that in fact, the respondent had polled 60 votes less than her. She pleaded that on a request being made by her for recounting -of votes against Ward No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the Election Officer allowed the same qua Ward No. 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 and that in the exercise so undertaken, 16 valid votes were found to have been cast in her favour, out of which 5 were again illegally rejected and 11 were awarded to her. She stated that on the basis of such incomplete counting, it transpired that she had polled 1231 votes against 1232 votes of the respondent for which the later was declared elected. Detailing the eventualities and the manner in which according to her, valid votes cast in her favour had been improperly rejected and votes had been improperly admitted for the respondent, she insisted for recounting of all the votes polled to adjudge the correct result of the election and on the basis of the same for declaring her to be elected for having secured maximum number of votes and in excess of those actually polled by the respondent.

(3.) IT would be apt at this stage to set out the relevant paragraphs of the election petition constituting the averments forming the foundation of the challenge to the election of the respondent. averments forming the foundation of the challenge to the election of the respondent.