HAMIDA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the learned Panchayat Election Tribunal, Barpeta in Election Petition No.13/2013 setting aside the election of the writ petitioner and declaring the private respondent elected from Hazipara Gaon Panchayat.

(2.) Facts involved in this case are that Election to Hazipara Gaon Panchayat was held on 6.2.2013 wherein, among others, the present writ petitioner (Mstt. Haimda Khatun) and the private respondent No.3 (Mstt. Parvin Sultana) were also on the fray. Petitioner fought the election on a Ticket of the Indian National Congress Party and the respondent No.3 was a nominee of the AUDF Party. Counting was held on 14.2.2013 whereupon the petitioner was declared to have been elected as President of the Hazipara Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner was shown to have scored 3422 votes followed by her nearest rival, namely, the respondent No. 3 herein, who was found to have polled 3299 votes and thus there was a margin of 323 votes between the returned candidate and her nearest rival. The tally of all the candidates on fray were as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter on 25.3.2013, the respondent No.3 filed an election petition, being Election Petition No.13/2013 under section of 129 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 before the learned District Judge, Barpeta who is designated as Panchayat Election Tribunal for the district of Barpeta. The prayer in the election petition was for setting aside of election of the returned candidate upon recounting and thereupon to declare her elected as President of the said Gaon Panchayat. In paragraph 4 of the election petition, the election petitioner pleaded that the counting staff and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta 'resorted to gross irregularities in counting by mixing half open ballot papers and also ballots liable to be rejected with bundle of ballots containing ballots of 'the' retuned candidate. It is also alleged that votes cast in favour of the election petitioner were counted along with votes of the returned candidate. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it is alleged that there were 'acts of rigging and violation of election laws committed by the counting staff in collusion of 'the returned candidate, her counting staff and the local MLA with the indirect approval of the Presiding Officer'. On summons being served on the returned candidate who is the petitioner here, he submitted written statement denying the allegations. But before the trial had started the learned Panchayat Election Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') passed an order on 21.6.2013 observing that the learned counsel of the returned candidate "honestly submitted that he has nothing to object if court is pleased to pass an order of recounting of votes". The said order dated 21.6.2013 of the Learned Election Tribunal ended with following observation:-