ANAND MOHAN Vs. ANWARUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this election petition filed under Sections 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), Anand Mohan, election petitioner has challenged the election of returned-candidate Md. Anwarul Haque, respondent No. 1, who has been declared elected from 12, Sheohar Parliamentary Constituency in the mid-term Parliamentary Election, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election in question') held on 3-10-1:999 and has prayed for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1, recounting of votes and on the basis of said counting declaring the petitioner as returned candidate in the election in question.

(2.) The case of petitioner, in short, is that the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi-cum-Returning Officer of 12, Sheohar Parliamentary Constituency issued Notification on 7-9-1999 for mid-term Election of Parliament, 1999 in 12, Sheohar Parliamentary Constituency as per the following programme :

(3.) Altogether ten candidates filed nomination papers before the Returning Officer and out of them nomination paper of one candidate Shri Hari Kishore Singh was rejected and after scrutiny, nomination papers of nine candidates were found valid and were accepted by the Returning Officer but thereafter one other candidate Ijaharul Haque withdrew from the field and only eight candidates including the petitioner and respondent No. 1 contested the election. Petitioner was nominee of Bihar People's Party and respondent No. 1 was nominee of Rashtriya Janta Dal. According to petitioner, the Instructions of Election Commission of India were flagrantly violated during the counting because of the partisan attitude of the Returning Officer who was favouring respondent No. I and Assistant Returning Officers did not even bother to take care of the fact that in initial counting how many votes had been polled according to Form16, Part-1 and how many votes. In fact, had been counted and this resulted in gross illegalities that on many polling stations there was difference in the actual votes polled there according to Form-16, Part-I and those counted at the time of initial counting as per Form-16, Part-II. According to Form-16, Part-I for Booth No. 2 in respect of Dhaka Assembly Constituency Segment, 540 votes were polled but at the time of initial counting only 340 votes: were counted for Booth No.209, 450 votes were polled but 390 votes were counted, for Booth No. 255 no vote was polled but 360 votes were counted for Booth No. 256, 590 votes were polled but 609 votes were counted, for Booth No. 157, 659 votes were polled but 650 votes were counted, for Booth No, 239, 300 votes were . polled but 249 votes were counted. According to the petitioner, on several other booths of this Dhaka Assembly Constituency Segment there is apparent difference in between the number of votes actually polled at the polling stations and the number of votes counted in initial counting and such irregularities have been committed in all the Assembly Constituency'Segments affecting thousands of votes which vitiated the counting.