LAWS(P&H)-1993-9-35

BOOTA SINGH Vs. SHER SINGH

Decided On September 08, 1993
BOOTA SINGH Appellant
V/S
SHER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Boota Singh, defeated candidate, has challenged the election of Sher Singh, respondent No. 1, to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, which was held on 19-2-1992 regarding Assembly Constituency No. 115, Mansa, District Bhatinda, Punjab.

(2.) Briefly, it has been alleged that Sher Singh, respondent No. 1, secured 6137 votes as against 6101 votes, which were secured by the petitioner; that the ballot box at Booth No. 79 on counting table No. 8 was found without any seal and when Shri Gora Singh son of Teja Singh the counting agent of the petitioner raised an objection it was turned down by the Returning Officer; that the supporters of respondent No. 1 numbering about 40 came in a truck at about 2.00 p.m. and in collusion with the polling staff cast the votes although these persons did not belong to village Gharangana; that the polled votes from Booth Nos. 155 and 156 were 32 while actually only one vote was polled on the day of polling; that about 40 supporters of respondent No. 1, the returned candidate had come in a truck at 11 a.m. to cast votes to village Mann Bibrian although they were not voters of the village, that though the mother of the returned candidate was already dead yet he got her vote polled through some other woman. Besides this, the petitioner has given the particulars of 9 dead persons in lieu of whom the votes were allegedly cast with the consent of respondent No. l; that the petitioner made, an application for re-counting at table Nos. 3, 5, 9 yet this proposal was ignored and result was declared; that the result of the election has been materially affected on account of improper reception of the votes and the petitioner has prayed for re-counting regarding Booth Nos. 115 and 116 and also prayed for setting-aside the election of the returned candidate.

(3.) There is a preliminary objection that the affidavit filed with the election petition is not in conformity with the statute and is no affidavit in the eye of law and that the election petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; that even the election petitioner has not properly verified the election petition. The verification is wholly defective and the election petition is thus, not maintainable; that the averments made in the election petition regarding improper reception of votes are baseless and lack material facts and full particulars; that the true copy of the election petition as required under S. 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 supplied to the answering respondent was not an attested true copy. Besides this the alleged affidavit as furnished by the petitioner was not notarised and the election petition is liable to be dismissed. The other allegations were also controverted. The issues were framed on 30-10-1992. However at present only five preliminary issues have come up for decision and these are reproduced as under :-