NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) Niranjan Singh Appellant, herein, filed an election petition on October 24, 1983 against Joginder Singh Respondent on the election of the latter as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The election was challenged, inter alia on the ground that Respondent Joginder Singh had managed to secure a number of fake votes in his favour in connivance with the polling staff. The election petition was heard by the prescribed authority and on May 7, 1985, the election of Joginder Singh, the present Respondent, was set aside and Niranjan Singh Appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch. Joginder Singh aforesaid filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the prescribed authority with a direction that he should exhibit the tendered votes in the presence of the parties so as to give a clear finding as to in whose favour the tendered votes were cast. The prescribed authority after examining the evidence found that three votes that were tendered had been cast in favour of Niranjan Singh Appellant. It was also held by the prescribed authority that three votes which were disputed ones had been cast in favour of Joginder Singh and as the three votes were fake, they had to be deducted from the total number of votes cast in favour of that person. The inference that was to be drawn was that if the three tendered votes had been cast in favour of Niranjan Singh Appellant that would take his tally to 346 and if the three fake votes were to be deducted from Joginder Singh's total, that would bring his total down from 347 to 344. It was on this basis that Niranjan Singh Appellant was declared elected.

(3.) The matter was once again taken in appeal to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the learned District Judge, who after examining the matter afresh, came to the conclusion that no evidence had been produced by the election-Petitioner which could positively determine that the fake votes had been cast in favour of Joginder Singh, Respondent and as such, in this view of the matter, it was difficult to hold that three votes were to be deducted from the total number of votes cast in favour of Joginder Singh.