CHITRASEN SINKU Vs. BIJAY SINGH SOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Faced with the inevitable consequence of non-compliance with the provision of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the petitioner has taken refuge in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) via Section 87 of the Act by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code for condoning the delay that has occurred in presenting this petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate, to be more precise, respondent No. 1.

(2.) Petitioner, Chitrasen Sinku was the Bharatiya Janta Party candidate in the election to 51 Singhbhum (ST) Parliamentary constituency held in 1998. Besides the petitioner, three others who are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this petition, were in the fray after the scrutiny and withdrawal of nomination papers. Respondent No. 1 Bijay Singh Soy was a Congress candidate; whereas respondent No. 2 Mangal Singh Bobonga was sponsored by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and respondent No. 3 Shri Krishna Mardi had contested the election as an independent candidate. The poll was held on 16-2-98 and the ballot papers counted on 2-3-1998 and 3-3-1998. The result of the election to the said constituency was declared on 3-3-1998 and respondent No. 1 Bijay Singh Soy was declared elected/returned having secured the highest number of valid votes polled. He secured as many as 1,86,242 such votes, while the petitioner had secured 1,75,390 valid votes polled. Respondent No. 2 had secured 1,24,655 votes; whereas respondent No. 3 had obtained 24,719 votes. 14,363 votes were found invalid and consequently rejected.

(3.) Thus, the petitioner having lost the battle of ballots in the said constituency by a margin of 10852 votes only has called in question the election of respondent No. 1 by filing the present petition under Section 81 of the Act on 23-4-98. The grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No. 1 are that about 20,000 ballot papers marked in his favour were wrongly rejected as doubtful/invalid in spite of protest by his counting Agents in course of the counting of ballot papers; that about 25000 ballot papers which were otherwise invalid and not acceptable by dint of bearing no signature of the Presiding Officer/Officers and distinguishing mark of the polling booth concerned, were treated as valid and counted in favour of respondent No. 1 instead of being rejected in spite of objection raised by, and on behalf of, the petitioner; and lastly, that votes polled by him were counted in favour of respondent No. 1.