PARALADH SINGH Vs. VIDYA DEVI M L A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paraladh Singh-petitioner filed this election petition under Sections 80, 81 and 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act") challenging the election of Vidya Devi, the returned candidate to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from 80 Darba Kalan Assembly Constituency.

(2.) Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be noticed thus;

(3.) As per the averments in the election petition, four tables were arranged in the counting hall for the counting of votes and there was another table for the Returning Officer, Shri Dalip Singh Bishnoi, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa. It was alleged that the Returning Officer was a very close associate of Ch. Bhajan Lal, Ex-Chief Minister, Haryana and he was from amongst those 30 persons promoted by the Government of Haryana during the Congress-1 rule, whose selection is under challenge in the High Court. As per the directions of the Election Commission of India, all the ballot papers were to be first put in a big box and after mixing and sorting out, the same were to be converted into packets of 25 ballot papers each. Twenty packets were to be distributed in every round at each table. The counting agents appointed by the candidates were not allowed to sit near the tables and they could only see the ballot papers being counted from some distance through an iron net. The petitioner does not have any grouse about the counting of votes upto the 21st round. According to him when the counting of 21st round was in progress on 10.5.1996, he was leading by 1669 votes. According to the petitioner, initially there were only four tables for counting of votes for the Vidhan Sabha election, but after the completion of counting of 21st round, three more tables were added. Thereby increasing the number of tables from 4 to 7. The petitioner had appointed only four counting agents i.e. one for each table, that on the sudden increase of tables, he was not able to arrange more counting agents to keep an eye on the counting at each table. It is alleged that counting upto 21st round was completed in the morning of 10.5.1996 and counting of remaining four rounds was done in less than three hours. It has been specifically alleged that after the counting of 21st round, about 700 to 800 votes, which has been cast in favour of the petitioner, were not counted in his favour and another about 150 votes, which were polled in his favour, had been wrongly rejected as invalid.