ANUP PUKHAN Vs. SHYAM MEWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Election Petition is filed under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, calling in question the legality, validity and declaration of election result declaring respondent No. 4 as elected from 119 Tingkhong Legislative Assembly Constituency to the Assam Legislative Assembly.

(2.) There were 10 candidates from different political parties. The election petitioner contested the election as a candidate sponsored by the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP). The returned candidate, respondent No. 4, was sponsored by the Indian National Congress. His symbol was Hand while that of the election petitioner was Elephant. Polling was held on 27.4.96 and counting of votes was scheduled for 8.5.96. The ballot boxes after polling started reaching the strong room located at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Dibrugarh. The time gap of 10 days between [polling and counting of votes created some apprehension of tampering with the ballot boxes kept in the strong room located in the aforesaid School. To ensure safety and security of ballot boxes, a petition was filed before this Court and a direction was issued allowing the candidates to engage persons of their choice to keep a round the clock vigilant watch on the ballot boxes at the strong room. Accordingly election petitioner engaged Digendra Khanikar, Binod Borah and Biren Gogoi as his accredited agents to keep watch on the strong room. His grievance is that they were not allowed to enter the guarded area of the strong room and the entry was intentionally delayed. The authorities were dilly dalling the matter. Therefore, a complaint had to be lodged to the Chief Election Commissioner and it was at his intervention that the agents of the election petitioner were permitted to enter. It is on the basis of the delaying tactics that the election petitioner wants this Court to draw an inference that it was only with a view to facilitate the commission of irregularity that the above named agents of the election petitioner were not allowed entry. It is rather stretching the matter too far.

(3.) The other grounds on which the election petition is based is alleged irregularity during the material time which materially affected the election result. The election petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 and his subordinates were in collusion with the returned candidate who happened to be the nominee of the ruling party at that time. The irregularities alleged in the counting hall pertain to total number of counting tables on the second day of counting i.e. 8.5.96 from 7 they were increased to 14. Naturally the election petitioner's counting agents could not attend to all the 14 tables. The other allegation is on 9.5.96 the counting was stopped between 7 AM to 9 AM while the ballot boxes were lying in open and some in trunk and not candidate or counting agent was allowed to remain in the hall during that period. Counting agents were forced to vacate the counting hall. Petitioner's grievance is that unscheduled suddenly declared break in counting was solely with a view to help respondent No. 4, a candidate sponsored by the then ruling party, Lt has, therefore, been urged that it should be viewed with all seriousness.