VIRENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 contested the election to the office of Sarpanch held on 12th March, 2002. The 3rd respondent was declared elected. Aggrieved by the declaration, the petitioner filed an election petition under Sec. 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petition was tried by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. It was dismissed vide order dated 4th January, 2001. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faridabad. It was allowed. The case was "sent back to the learned Lower Court for passing the order with regard to the scrutiny and computation of the votes for after recounting in view of the provisions of Sec. 176(4Xb) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act and for deciding the matter accordingly". The matter was then placed before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. On recount, the authority found that respondent No. 3 had secured 143 valid votes. The petitioner had got 141 valid votes. The third candidate had 128 votes, 16 votes were found to be invalid. Thus, the result as already declared, was held to be valid. The election petition was dismissed. Copies of these three orders have been produced as Annexures P. 15, P. 16 and P. 17 respectively. The petitioner prays that the orders at Annexures P. 15 and P. 17 be quashed.

(2.) Shri O.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has made a two -fold submission.

(3.) The contentions cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order passed by the authority shows that the ballot papers were examined. It was found that "rubber stamps are visible, though the same are weak in impression". Thus, it is clear that the petitioner's contention that the voters had thumb marked the ballot papers has not been accepted. The finding recorded by the authority is clear and categorical. The rubber stamp had been used. The authority had merely to see as to whether or not the voter had made his intention manifest. Apparently, there was no violation of he prescribed procedure. Even though he impression was found to be weak, the intention was obvious. That being the position, the authority has committed no error in accepting the claim of the respondent and in counting the votes in his favour. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the entire process of recount as conducted by the authority in pursuance to the directions given by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 24th September, 2001 is void. Thus, the order at Annexure P. 17 should be quashed.