RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2002 passed by Munsif II, Vaishali (Hajipur) in Election Petition No. 63 of 2001. By the impugned order the learned Munsif allowed the election petition filed by respondent no. 4, set aside the election of the petitioner as Mukhiya of Agral Gram Pachayat in the district of Vaishali and directed the Election Officer to declare respondent no. 4 as the winning candidate, to issue in his favour the necessary certificate in that regard and to take steps for administering the oath of office to him.

(2.) THE whole dispute in this case hinges on the question whether or not the votes polled at booth no. 152 were to be taken into account for determining the result of the election. The election authorities declared the result of the election on the basis that the petitioner had polled 974 while respondent no. 4 had got 857 votes. This score was arrived at by not taking into reckoning the votes polled at booth no. 152. The votes polled at that booth were cancelled and excluded from the count on the basis of the direction of the Election Commission as contained in its letter no.4681, dated26.5.2001. By this letter the Election Commission recalled its earlier direction for taking into account the votes polled at booth no. 152 for declaring the final result as contained in its letter no.4461, dated 23.5.2001. The learned Munsif has found and held that the latter direction of the Election Commission to cancel the votes polled at booth no. 152 was the result of a mistake committed by the Returning Officer of the booth; that the Election Commission itself believed it to be a mistake and hence, the valid and operative direction of the Commission must be held to be its earlier direction as contained in the letter, dated 23.5.2001 to take into count the votes polled at booth no. 152.

(3.) THE whole controversy has arisen, as may be seen presently, due to the exceedingly high percentage of votes polled at booth no. 152 and the inconsistent re - ports submitted by the Returning Officer of the booth. The facts of the case, unlike the majority of election disputes are brief, simple and undisputed and the adjudica - tion is to be made, as the learned Munsif has righlty observed, only on the basis of the documentary evidences.