HAKRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on computation sheet Annex. 1. The respondents have filed Annex. R/1 and contested that there are obvious errors in the computation sheet Annex. 1. In ward No. 8, there were three candidates. Only two candidates have been shown in Annex. 1. If three candidates are entered, then position becomes clear as evident from Annex. R/1. Comparing two documents, defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is obvious. Further a look at Annex. 1 shows that it has been incorrectly prepared. Not only the votes of the petitioner have been wrongly mentioned but age of the petitioner Hakri has been shown to be 466 years. Obviously on the basis of such document, no interference can be done in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. If any case or grievance remains with the petitioners, they will be at liberty to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal. Petition dismissed.