MANILAL GOWALA Vs. SUKHENDU SEKHAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this election petition under Section 80 read with Section 80A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the election petitioner Manilal Gowala, who was one of the candidates contesting the last General Election to the State Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 2, Patherkandi, District Karimganj held in April, 1996, has called in question the aforesaid election challenging the declaration of result dated 12.5.96 declaring the Respondent No. 1, Sukhendu Sekhar Dutta, to be duly elected. There were twenty candidates in the field including the election petitioner and the returned candidate, Respondent No. 1, who contested the election as candidates of Indian National Congress (I) and Bharatiya Janata Party respectively. The other candidates have been arraigned as Respondents 5 to 22. Though severed with notices, they have not filed any written statement nor contested the petition.

(2.) Election to Patherkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency No.2 was held on 27th April, 1996. There were 134 Polling Station in the entire constituency where polling was held on 27.4.96 but due to some irregularities in Polling Station Nos. 8, 34 and 36, the election Commission ordered re-poll in these three polling stations, namely, Polling Station No. 8 Alapur, Polling Station No. 34 and 36 Premamayee Vidyalaya, which was held on 30th April, 1996.

(3.) Counting took place on 8th May, 1996 and continued till 11th May, 1996. The result was declared on 12th May, 1996. The returned candidate Sukhendu Sekhar Dutta polled 20,618 votes while the election petitioner polled 19,823 votes as per declaration of result in Form 21E under Rule 64 of Conduct of Election Rules. The election has been challenged mainly on the ground of alleged irregularities committed during counting. According to the election petitioner his counting agents were intimidated by the Returning Officer, there was brow beating, at the slightest objection raised by the counting agents C.R.P.F. was called. The Petitioner was prevented from inspecting the seals of all Ballot Boxes at the time of opening, and also from inspecting the Ballot Papers. His charge is that the Presiding Officer/Returning Officer grossly abused his/their position, and the entire process of counting was fraught with gross irregularities and conducted in an illegal manner.