HARU RAJWAR Vs. LATA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Election Petition has been filed under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of People Act (shortly R. P. Act), 1951, challenging the election of 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) Constituency and the final result of the said election declaring the respondent as an elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly which was held in the month of March, 1985.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was also a candidate for the aforesaid 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) reserved constituency by filing his 'nomination paper. After scrutiny several candidates remained in the field contesting the election. In Paragraph 5 of the Election Petition a list of 16 persons has been shown contested the election in the aforesaid reserved constituency. The respondent was ultimately declared elected whose election is being challenged in this election case. The petitioner was allotted 'bow and arrow' symbol on 9th February, 1985 and thereafter, he started election campaign and canvassing on the basis of the aforesaid symbol. On 14th February, 1985 the Returning Officer issued a notice intimating his intention to change the petitioners allotted symbol which was received by great surprise by the petitioner. The petitioner, in strict obedience of the notice, appeared through his lawyer and filed objection. He contended that once the election symbol was allotted, it was final and it cannot be changed. He further contended that the allotment of symbol is not subject to any review by the Returning Officer. The Election Commissioner of India is the only competent authority to revise the allotment of symbol done by the Returning Officer and that too sparingly and also under unusual and compelling situation. Further case of the petitioner is that in spite of the protest, the Returning Officer, on 15th February 1985, changed his originally allotted election symbol from 'bow and arrow' to 'ladder'. Bow and arrow' was allotted to another candidate and 'ladder' was allotted to the petitioner. This change in the election symbol made by the Returning Officer is claimed by the petitioner to be void and without jurisdiction as it has materially affected the election result. It is claimed that originally the election symbol 'ladder' which was subsequently allotted to the petitioner, was allotted to another candidate. Panchanan Rajak, an independent candidate. Murari Dasi, an another independent candidate was allotted an election symbol 'woman carrying basket on her head'. On 15th February, 1985, the symbol 'bow and arrow' was again illegally allotted to Murari Dasi by revising the earlier order of the Returning Officer.

(3.) It is further claimed that under Section 30 of the R. P. Act, atleast 20 days' time is prescribed for propagation of the symbol among the voters and the election campaign but that opportunity was not given to the petitioner as his election symbol was changed on 15th February, 1985 and the poll took place on 5th March, 1985. Therefore, the petitioner did not get clear 20 days time for campaign and propagation of his new symbol allotted to him and thus there has been violation or Section 30 of the R. P. Act. It is further claimed that clause (d) of Paragraph 13 of the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the name and specimen signature of the authorised person in form (A) are to be communicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency concerned and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State/Union Territory, as the case may be. Till the last date for making nomination, no name and specimen signature of the authorised persons for setting up candidates for the party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was communicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency, 286-Chandan Kiyari (SC) and to the Chief Electoral Officer of the State by the Election Commission of India or by the authorised person of the party 'Jharkhand Mukti Morcha' as per clause (d) of Paragraph 13 of Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotmant) Order, 1968.