CHANDER BHAN Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an election petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) calling in question the election of Ramesh Kumar respondent to the Haryana State Legislative Assembly from 38-Baroda (SC) Assembly Constituency. The Grounds on which the election has been challenged are that on the date of his election the returned candidate was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat under the Constitution and the Act and that his nomination papers along with those of some other candidates who have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 8 were improperly accepted. Some irregularities during the course of the counting of votes have also been alleged and the petitioner has sought a declaratioon that after recounting the votes, he be declared elected. It is alleged that votes which were void were improperly accepted in favour of respondent 1 whereas valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner were improperly rejected.

(2.) Elections to the Haryana State Legislative Assembly were held in April, 1996 in which the petitioner and the respondents were candidates from 38-Baroda (SC) reserve Assembly constituency. Petitioner contested the election as a candidate of the Haryana Vikas party whereas Ramesh Kumar respondent was a candidate of the Samta party. Polling was held on April 27, 1996, counting of votes started on May 8, 1996 and the result was declared on May 9, 1996. Respondent 1 polled 28181 votes whereas the petitioner polled 26197 votes. Since the votes polled by respondent 1 were more than the votes polled by any other candidate, he was declared elected.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by this Court only the returned candidate has put in appearance and opposed the petition. The other respondents did not choose to appear and were proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement filed by the returned candidate some preliminary objections were raised apart from controverting the allegations on merits. It is averred that paras 4 to 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the petition do not raise any triable issue and that the allegations made therein lack in material facts and, therefore, the said paragraphs are liable to be struck off. It is further averred that Clauses (a) to (g) of para 17 of the petition are vague and deficient in material facts and these are also liable to be struck off. On merits, the allegations made by the petitioner have been emphatically denied.