RAM NARESH PANDEY Vs. SITA RAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sections 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (In short the 'Act') challenging the election of the returned candidate, namely, Sitaram Yadav. Respondent No. 1, from 75 Harlakhi Assembly Constituency in the last election of Bihar Legislative Assembly held in the year 2000.

(2.) The petitioner was one of the contesting candidates in the election in question and besides him there were eleven other contesting candidates whose names appear in paragraph-6 of the election petition itself and they have also been made party respondents in the present case. The Sub-Divisional Officer of Jainagar, Sub-Division was appointed /returning Officer in the election in question and as per Notification of Election Commission of India dated 12th January, 2000, election in Bihar was held with the following programmes:

(3.) The candidature of the petitioner and the other respondents in the present case were found to be proper on scrutiny of their Nomination papers as required under the law. Polling was held on 22-2-2000 and re-polling was held in respect of only one Booth namely, Booth No. 185 on 24-2-2000. The counting of Ballot papers started from the morning hours of 25-2-2000 in two rooms of R. K. College, Madhubani, and concluded on 26-2-2000 and final result was declared on 26-2-2000 declaring respondent No. 1 as an elected candidate in the election in question. The election petitioner, as per the result-sheet, received 34, 421 votes while the respondent No. 1 Sitaram Yadav, the elected candidate, received 36, 955 votes and the number of votes received by other candidates who are respondents in the present case have also been mentioned categorically and specifically in paragraph-10 of the election petition. The margin of votes between the Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was narrow and to the extent of only 534 votes. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no proper counting of ballots and there were commission of several irregularities/illegalities in the counting of ballot papers, the details of which have been mentioned in Paragraph-11 of the election petition. The irregularities/illegalities claimed from the side of the petitioner were of the following nature: That about 1594 ballots paper which were counted in favour of respondent No. 1 were fit to be rejected as there were inherent defects in those ballots and those ought to have been rejected and according to the election petitioner, such illegal acceptance of 1594 ballot papers in favour of respondent No. 1 has materially affected the result of the election and those ballots, namely, 1594 ballots pertain to Booth Nos. 175, 200 and 201 and were counted in 7th and 8th round of counting respectively. The first ground of illegality was that there were inherent and intrinsic defects on those ballots bearing no signatures of the Presiding Officers of the respective Booths and lacking in respect of distinguishing marks of the Booths concerned. The second ground of illegality was that the counter-foil of the aforesaid ballot papers did not bear the signatures of the genuine voters. The third ground was that in respect of the total number of ballots of Booth No. 200, almost all the votes had been received by the respondent No. 1 and same is the position in respect of Booth Nos. 201 and 175. The fourth and the last ground of illegality urged from the side of the election petitioner was that the voting pattern in respect of those 1594 ballots were so same and similar by putting the seals on the middle of the symbol of respondent No. 1 which can presume the fact that those votings were not done by individual genuine voters but being done either by the same person or by a same machinery.