DEVENDER Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election of Panchayat Samiti Bahadurgarh had been notified and was scheduled to be held on 12.3.2000. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 contested the election from Ward No. 1, Bahadurgarh. The counting was held on 18.3.2000 at Aggarwal Dharamshala, Bahadurgarh. The detail of the votes polled and that the invalid votes found therefrom and the valid votes is as under : Total Votes Polled : 3570 Votes found invalid : 73 Valid Votes : 3497

(2.) THE petitioner was declared unsuccessful and resultantly he filed an Election petition under Section 176(4)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with a specific prayer of seeking recount of the votes. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that in the first instance, he had been declared elected by one vote. However, lateron, the counting staff in collusion with Chander Singh son of Mange Ram respondent No. 2 manipulated the counting affairs and by addition of some invalid votes, the respondent No. 2 was declared elected. In the petition, the only prayer made is that the petition be accepted and by ordering recount of the votes, the appropriate result be declared and that upon the basis of the pleas taken by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 would have to be unseated and the petitioner would be entitled to be elected. It is the admitted case that the election has not been challenged on any other ground. Upon notice, the respondent No. 2 filed written statement vide which the alleged averments made by the petitioner have been emphatically denied. The other respondents did not file any written statement meaning thereby, they have conceded to the pleas taken by the petitioner and infact no objection has been raised in writing or orally objecting to the plea of recount.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the Election Petition vide judgment dated 23.8.2001. Primarily, the rule, i.e., preservation of secrecy of the Ballot is sacrosanct principle which should not be lightly or hastily broken unless a prima facie genuine case is made out has been relied upon. It has been observed by the trial court that the petitioner has not been able to divulge as to how many votes polled in his favour have been declared invalid, but as per the declaration of the result only 73 votes have been declared invalid. It has been admitted that he himself and his agents were present at the time of counting and they were also present at the time when the polling took place at three places. However, they did not affix their signatures upon the result sheet. On the other hand, the contesting respondent appeared as his own witness and has deposed that the counting took place in a lawful and rightful manner and that the allegation levelled by the petitioner are baseless. It has been observed that the only plea taken up by the petitioner is that infact he had been declared elected by one vote and subsequently, respondent No. 2 stood declared elected by a margin of 28 votes and that obviously the manipulations have been carried out after the result had been declared. It has been held that the petitioner has not been able to show as to what kind/type of irregularities or irregalities have been committed by the officials in connivance with respondent No. 2. It has been held that the allegations and the pleas are absolutely vague and upon the basis of such vague pleas the indulgence of recount cannot be granted. It has also been observed that while filing an application before the Returning Officer, no pleas have been taken but simplicitor request has been made for recount, which has been correctly rejected as the same had been filed after the result had been declared. Resultantly, the plea of recount has been declined.