HARIKISHUN SINGH Vs. KASHINATH RAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), setting aside the election of the petitioner to the office of Mukhiya of Dihri -Sonbarsa Gram Panchayat of Jagdishpur Anchal held in June, 1965. Besides, the petitioner there were two other candidates in the field, namely, Shri Kashinath Rai (respondent no. 1) and Shri Sheo Bachan Mishra (respondent no. 2). As a result of the counting of votes, which was held by the Presiding Officer (R.W. 1) the contesting candidates were found to have secured the following number of votes: - -.

(2.) In course of the hearing of the election petition, the election -petitioner secured an order from the Election Tribunal for inspection of the ballot papers but, at the instance of the petitioner, the said order for inspection of the ballot papers was set aside by this Court, and the Election Tribunal was directed not to take into consideration any material disclosed by making an inspection of the ballot papers.

(3.) During the hearing of the election petition, a point was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the election petition was vague inasmuch as no definite particulars had been furnished with regard to the ballot papers alleged to have been illegally counted in favour of the petitioner, or illegally rejected from among the ballot papers of respondent no. 1. To meet this objection to the frame of the election petition, the election -petitioner got an order for amendment of the election petition by including therein an averment to the effect that the number of ballot papers illegally counted in favour of the petitioner was 40 and that the number of ballot papers of respondent no. 1 which were illegally rejected was 30. All the allegations, however, were denied by the petitioner in his written statement and it was maintained that the election -petitioner was not entitled to any relief.