AMARJEET SINGH Vs. SAMPURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 21/02/1991, whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has maintained the order dated 12-4-1990 for scrutinising and recounting of votes passed by the learned Election Tribunal, Raisinghnagar.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the decision of this appeal briefly stated are that petitioner Amarjeet Singh, respondent Sampuran Singh and one Jeet Singh contested the elections for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, 10 T.K. The elections took place on 5-6-1988, it is alleged that in that election, the petitioner secured 552 votes whereas the respondent Sampuransingh received 535 votes and, therefore, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Pahayat, 10 T.K. It is further alleged that one Jeetsingh, who was aggrieved by this declaration of result filed an election petition before the learned Election Tribunal, Raisinghnagar challenging the election of petitioner Amarjeetsingh as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 10 T.K. In that election petition, the respondent Sampuransingh was arrayed as respondent No.2 but later on his request, he was substituted as election-petitioner. It was contended in the election-petition that the Returning Officer has committed irregularity in counting of votes by accepting certain votes in favour of petitioner Amarjeetsingh and by rejecting certain votes against respondent Sampuransingh. It was further contended that 20 votes which were casted in favour of respondent Sampuransingh have wrongly been rejected by the Returning Officer and 22 votes which did not bear a seal in favour of petitioner Amarjeetsingh have wrongfully been counted in favour of petitioner Amarjeetsingh. It was also contended that if those 20 votes which bore seal in favour of respondent Sampuransingh were counted in favour of respondent Sampuransingh and 22 votes which were not cast in favour of petitioner Amarjeetsingh had been rejected, the election result would have been different and the respondent Sampuransingh would have been declared elected. It was submitted that the difference of votes was of only 17 votes and 9 votes would have affected the result of the election this way and that way and, therefore, respondent Sampuransingh has sought re-scrutiny and recounting of votes. Certain allegations were made in the election petition as regards the fact that petitioner asked 20 persons to impersonate for the dead persons and to cast votes for him. It was further submitted that the Harbanshsingh was in America but still his vote was casted and, therefore, that has also tilted the result of the election in favour of the petitioner Amarjeetsingh. It was also submitted that the names of four forged persons were mentioned in the voter list and those four votes were casted. These allegations were later on given up and, therefore, to this extent, issues were not framed.

(3.) However, re-scrutiny and recounting of votes have been on the basis of the allegation that 20 votes which bore seal in favour of respondent Sampuransingh were wrongly rejected and 22 votes which were wrongly counted in favour of Amarjeetsingh should have been rejected because seal on those votes was not in favour of petitioner Amarjeetsingh.