IZHAR AHMAD Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of 86 Ghanshyampur Legislative Assembly Constituency which was held in the month of February, 2000 has been challenged in this election petition which has been filed under Sections 80, 80A and 91 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (hereinafter shall be mentioned as the Act) The election of returned candidate, namely, Dr. Mahabir Prasad who happens to be the sole respondent had been called in question. The election petitioner was a nominee of Janta Dal united and he contested the said election and being lost to the sole respondent. The Sub-Divisional Officer Pirol District Darbhanga, namely, Ram Udgar Mahto was the Returning Officer in the election in question. The programme of the election was as follows, as per the notification issued by the Election Commissioner of India:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1856_BLJR3_2003Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) In accordance with the aforesaid election programme the petitioner, the Respondent and 9 others had filed the nomination papers which were accepted by the Returning Officer. Two candidates, namely, Ramanand Yadav and Aftab Ahmad had withdrawn their candidature so in all only 9 candidates including the election petitioner and the respondent remained in the fray. The petitioner who was an official candidate of Janta Dal united had allotted with the symbol of arrow (Teer) and the respondent who is an official candidate of Rastriya Janta Dal was having the symbol of Lantern. Similarly the other candidates were having different symbols as has been elaborately stated in paragraph 8 of the election petition. On the date fixed polling was held on 22-2-2000 but then again on 24-2-2000 repelling was conducted on Booth Nos. 34, 53, 54, 114 and 224 of the impugned Assembly Constituency election. Counting started on 25-2-2000 and concluded on 26-6-2000. After completion of counting the Returning Officer had declared the respondent as elected. The election of the respondent has been challenged both on the ground of corrupt practice of booth capturing and undue influence.

(3.) It has been asserted in the election petition in paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 16, and onwards as to how the election was being vitiated by booth capturing and undue influence. According to the petitioner a few days before the poll the petitioner and his election agent had filed several petitions before the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, Chief Electrol Officer, Bihar, Election Observer, Darbhanga, Commissioner Darbhanga, District Magistrate, Darbhanga, Returning Officer cum SDO, Pirol and Direct General of Police, Patna wherein they alleged that they had apprehension of booth capturing at the instance of RJD candidate, the sole respondent, in large scale and, as such, requested the authorities concerned to take adequate security for conduction free and fair poll. They had mentioned several booths namely, Booth Nos. 267, 268, 266, 277, 278, 207, 205, 206, 265, 201, 202, 209 and 57 to 106 as supersensitive and they prayed for military deployment, if not, to be protected by para military force on the date of poll. It has also been asserted that Shri Chandra Kishore Jha a BJP leader of Ghanshyampur had also sent a petition to the Election Commission, New Delhi for declaring the above mentioned booths as sensitive and prayed for deployment of military and para military force. The petitioner further submitted that petition's were filed both before the law and order authorities and also the authorities of the election in the Assembly constituency but still no force were deployed in those booths. It has also been mentioned that the respondents being a senior cabinet rank Minister of the Government of Bihar at the relevant time had influenced the local Officers who were involved in the election to secure his wining the election. The petitioner could scent about it and then informed the same to the Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and also the Chief electoral Officer Bihar. But inspite of such complaint petition nothing had happened.