DEEP CHAND Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 81 read with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) calling in question the election of Ramji Lal respondent to the Haryana State Legislative Assembly from 3-Sadhaura (SC) Assembly constituency on the ground that the returned candidate had committed some corrupt practices within the meaning of the Act which render his election void. Some irregularities during the course of the counting of votes have also been alleged and the petitioner has sought a further declaration that after recounting the votes, he be declared elected.

(2.) Elections to the Haryana State Legislative Assembly were held in April, 1996 in which the petitioner and the respondents were candidates from 3-Sadhaura (Scheduled Caste) reserve Assembly constituency. Petitioner contested as an independent candidate whereas Ramji Lal respondent 1 was a candidate of the Samta Party. Polling was held on 27-4-1996 and in two Polling Booths a re-poll was held on 30-4-1996. Counting of votes started on May 8, 1996 and the result was declared on May 10, 1996. Ramji Lal respondent 1 polled 26142 votes whereas Deep Chand petitioner secured 24075 votes. Since the votes polled by respondent 1 were more than the votes polled by any other candidate, he was declared elected. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was a member of the Haryana Vikas Party and the contested elections to the State Assembly from this constituency held in the year 1991 on the ticket of Haryana Vikas party but was defeated. In the year 1996 the Haryana Vikas party had an electoral alliance with the Bhartiya Janta Party and as per the alliance this seat fell to the share of Bhartiya Janta Party and that Party had set up Dayal Singh, respondent 7, as its candidate. The Haryana Vikas Party did not put up any candidate because of the alliance and, therefore, the petitioner, as per his averments, contested the election as an independent candidate.

(3.) Election of the returned candidate has been challenged on three grounds, namely, (a) that he and/or his agents and/or other persons with his consent committed the corrupt practice of Booth Capturing both at the time of polling on 27-4-1996 and also at the time of counting of votes on 8-5-1996; (b) that the returned candidate committed the corrupt practice of incurring election expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, and (c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected on account of the various irregularities committed during the counting of votes as stated in paragraph 10 of the petition and a prayer for recounting the votes has been made and it is further alleged that on a recount it would be found that it is not the returned candidate but the petitioner who had received majority of valid votes and is, therefore, entitled to be declared elected. These three grounds on which the election is challenged have been stated in paragraph 6 of the petition and the material facts and full particulars which, according to the petitioner, constitute those corrupt practices have been set out in the subsequent paras of the petition. The ground of corrupt practice of Booth Capturing has been taken in para 6(a) of the petition whereas material facts and their particulars have been stated in para 8. Since a declaration has been sought that the petitioner be declared elected after recounting the votes, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner have been impleaded as respondents.