DEO SHARAN MAHTO Vs. RAM BILASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of these two applications may be briefly stated as follows. Deo Sharan Mahto, the petitioner of the two writ applications, was declared elected as the Mukhiya of Kuin-bar Gram Panchayat within Imamganj An-chal, Gaya, in the election which was held on the 20th of May, 1971. Ram Bilash Singh (respondent No. 1), who was also a candidate for the election of Mukhiya but was defeated, filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, Sadar, Gaya, on the 3rd of June, 1971, under Rule 72 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rides, 1959 (hereinafter to be called "the Rules"), a copy whereof has been made Annexure '1' to the writ applications. In the election petition respondent No. 1 alleged, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) As stated in paragraph 18 of C. W. J. C. No. 1174 of 1972, on the 4th of September, 1972, an application was made by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal for adjournment of the case and for postponement of the recounting on the ground that the petitioner had filed a writ application before this Court. A certificate to that effect from the lawyer of the petitioner in the High Court was filed. It is alleged that when the case was called out by the Election Tribunal at about 2 p. m. on the 4th of September, 1972, a petition for time was moved but no order was passed as the Election Tribunal was busy otherwise. It is further alleged that the Tribunal observed that the petitioner would be sent for if required. Accordingly the peti tioner came to the Bar library and the petitioner's lawyer with the leave of the Election Tribunal went to attend another case before the District Judge, Gaya, which had been taken up. Subsequently when the petitioner along with his lawyer Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Sinna came to the Court of the Election Tribunal at 3.40 p. m. they were surprised to find that behind the back of the petitioner and his lawyer and without intimation to them the Election Tribunal bad taken up the recounting of votes without disposing of the petitioner's prayer for time. An objection was taken by the petitioner but to no effect. According to the petitioner, the recounting proceeded even after 4.30 p. m. and the Election Tribunal illegally and mala fide took out 22 ballots out of 92 rejected ballots of Kuinbar booth and one rejected ballot from Maira Portable booth and declared the same as valid in favour of respondent No. 1. The Election Tribunal further discarded two ballots from Kuinbar booth and one ballot from Maira Portable booth in favour of the petitioner and declared respondent No. 1 to have been elected at 6 p. m. that day. A copy of the order dated the 4th of September, 1972, passed by the Election Tribunal has been made Annexure '5', and it is the subject-matter of challenge in C. W. J. C. No. 1174 of 1972.