YOGESH SETHI Vs. KRISHNA MOHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election to the 9th Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly were held on 28-2-1998. Respondents 1 to 7 contested such elections from 14 Solan Assembly Constituency. Respondent No. 1, who was a Congress candidate, was declared elected in such elections. Respondent No. 2, who was a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, was defeated by margin of 26 votes by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The two petitioners before this Court are the voters of 14-Solan Assembly Constituency. petitioner No. 1 was the counting agent, while petitioner No. 2 was the election agent of respondent No. 2 during such elections. By virtue of the present petition they have assailed the election of respondent No. 1, under Sections 80, 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Respresentation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have prayed that the election of respondent No. 1 from 14-Solan Assembly Constituency be declared void and be set aside and that respondent No. 2 be declared to have been duly elected from the said constituency under Section 101(a) of the Act.

(3.) While assailing the election of respondent No. 1 and in making out a case for inspection and recounting of votes, the petitioners have averred that the election of respondent No. 1 is hit by invalid counting of votes, wrong reception of invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and wrong rejection of valid votes cast in favour of respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners during the course of second recount 37 valid votes polled in favour of respondent No. 2. despite protests by petitioner No. 2, were wrongly and illegaly rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the mark of seal was affixed in the column of respondent No. 2 as well as in the column of other candidates, that is, either in the column of respondent No. 4 or in the column of respondent No. 5. The details of such 37 votes have been given in Para 8 of the petition as under:- CountingTable No.No. of votes polled in favour of respondent No.2 and rejected on the ground that the mark has also appeared in column of another candidate's which actually was impression of mark in respondent No 2's column iiiiii 123(In two of the ballots the impression of seal, originally affixed in the column of respondent No. 2, has appeared in the column of Sh Vinod Kumar and on 3rd ballot paper the impression of seal has appeared in the column of Sh Ravinder Nath Parihar141 (impression of seal appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original was affixed in respondent No.2's column153(impression of seal in all the three ballot papers appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar, whereas original was affixed in respondent No.2's column 1104(impression of seal in three of the ballot papers appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas on the 4th ballot paper impression of seal appeared in the column of Sh. Ravinder Nath Parihar, whereas the original mark was in the column of respondent No.2.1134(impression of seal in all the ballot papers appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas the original mark was in respondent No. 2's column1142(impression of seal appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar in one ballot paper and on the other the impression of seal appeared in the column of shri Ravinder Nath Parihar, whereas the actual mark of seal was in the column of respondent No.2.223(impression of seal in all the ballot paper appeared in the column of sh. Vinod Kumar, whereas, original mark was in column of respondent No. 2.233( In two of the ballot papers impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Ravinder Nath Parihar, whereas on the third ballot paper the impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar, where as the original mark was in the column of respondent No. 2.241(impression of seal appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar, whereas original mark was in respondent No.2's column252(impression of seal appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar, whereas original mark of seal was in respondent No.2's column.281(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar Nath Parihar whereas original mark of seal was in respondent No. 2's column.2121(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No. 2.2133(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No. 2.311(impression had appeared in column of Sh. Ravinder Nath Parihar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No.2. 351(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No. 2.371(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No. 2.3143(impression of seal had appeared in the column of Sh. Vinod Kumar whereas original mark of seal was in the column of respondent No. 2.