RAM SARUP Vs. PEER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Ratia constituency was held in May 1991. Peer Chand, respondent No. 1, a candidate belonging to Haryana Vikas Party, was declared elected having secured 13255 votes. Rival candidate Ram Sarup petitioner secured 11988 votes. In this petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') Ram Sarup petitioner, the defeated candidate, has challenged election of Peer Chand respondent No. 1. Mainly the grounds taken up in the petition are covered by Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. With respect to ground No. (III) it is particularly asserted that at the time of counting at different tables at different rounds of counting certain number of votes belonging to the petitioner and other candidates were wrongfully put in the bundle of respondent No. 1 and if on recount such number of votes are taken out of the bundle of respondent No. 1, he would stand defeated. With respect to ground No. (iv) it is alleged that the seating arrangement at the time of counting of the ballot papers was such that it was not possible for the counting agents to see, much less properly see, the ballot papers in the process of counting. A barbed wire was put in between tables of the counting officers and counting agents of the candidates who were also made to sit at a sufficient distance from where they could not properly see the ballot papers. The counting staff appointed was openly siding with respondent No. 1. Counting agents of the petitioner were turned out. Door Darshan and All India Radio earlier announced election of the petitioner. However, subsequently respondent No. 1 was announced to have been elected.

(2.) Election petition has been contested by respondent No. 1 by filing written statement. All the assertions of the petitioner have been denied. It is pleaded that the election did not disclose material facts constituting cause of action and thus the same could not be put to trial.

(3.) On the pleadings, issues were framed on 14/02/1992. Counsel for both the parties stated that issue No. 1 be treated as preliminary as no evidence was required to be led on this issue. It was so ordered. Issue No. 1 reads as under :- "1) Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action ? Opp."