SHANKAR LAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Om Parkash has filed election petition against the appellant. The same was allowed by the Election Tribunal, Fathegarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and the election of the appellant was declared void, and respondent No. 1 was declared elected. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE contention of respondent No. 1 in the election petition was that elections to the Municipal Council in the State of Punjab were held in the year 1998 by the Punjab State Election Commission, Chandigarh. The election of Municipal Committee, Mandi Gobindgarh took place on 12.1.1998. There were four candidates contesting the elections in ward No. 8. Amongst the contestants were the appellant, respondent No. 1, respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 5 Paramjit Singh submitted a notice of withdrawal of his candidature but ultimately he cancelled the said notice. Respondent No. 1 contended in the election petition that he was not satisfied with the arrangement made by the Returning Officer for conducting the elections of ward No. 8 and brought it to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Fathegarh Sahib on 8.1.1998 that place chosen for polling of votes was inadequate as it was a Dharamshala having two small rooms without any exit. There were 2240 voters in ward No. 8 and keeping in view the voting strength, the place for polling station was quite inadequate. The letter written by respondent No. 1 is at Annexure P-1 with the election petition. He has also sent a copy of the same to the State Election Commission. It was further contended by respondent No. 1 in the election petition that the President of his p arty also wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fathegarh Sahib in which it was mentioned that anti-social elements were trying to create disturbance with the intention to intimidate the voters and there was a chance of group clashes and that the wards were very sensitive. It was prayed to deploy necessary security forces. Again on 9.1.1998, respondent No. 1 also wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Fathegarh Sahib, regarding the same. He contended that his request was not paid by heed to. The election to ward No. 8 took place on 12.1.1998 at Dharamshala situated in Shanti Nagar. The polling of course was by and large peaceful.

(3.) AS stated earlier, there were 2240 voters in ward No. 8. The votes polled were only 1580. The counting of votes started at 4.30 p.m., and up to 5.30 p.m. It was clear that respondent No. 1 was leading with a heavy margin. It was alleged that at the instance of the appellant, respondent No. 5-Paramjit Singh suddenly stood up, took a number of ballot papers from the bundle belonging to respondent No. 1 and ran away with the ballot papers out of the room and threw them in the open, in front for the public. The public collected the ballot papers which were thrown by respondent No. 5-Paramjit Singh. They were all found to be ballot papers belonging to respondent No. 1. Some of the ballot papers which were collected by the public were handed over to respondent No. 1, which on counting were found numbering 139. Thereafter, the Presiding Officer counted the remaining votes and found that respondent No. 1 secured 512 votes. The appellant had secured 562 votes and respondent No. 5 had secured 293 votes. Respondent No. 6 had secured only two votes. There were 16 invalid votes. Hence, though the votes polled were 1580, the total votes counted were 1385. This confirmed that the ballot papers taken away by Paramjit Singh-respondent No. 5 were 195. It was the contention of respondent No. 1 that all the 139 ballot papers collected by the public and given to him were the valid ballot papers cast in his favour. The Returning Officer and the other employees did not accept the ballot papers. It was further contended by respondent No. 1 that he secured more votes than the appellant and was liable to be declared elected. It was also contended that all the staff present, including the Returning Officer assured respondent No. 1 that he would be declared elected in case the ballot papers thrown outside the room had been polled in his favour. It was not disputed by the Returning Officer or any of his staff or the candidates that the ballot papers were not original ballot papers used in the election of ward No. 8. However, the prayer of respondent No. 1 was not accepted and re-polling was held and after the counting of votes of re-polling, appellant was declared elected and hence election petition was filed by respondent No. 1.