SUGANI DEVI Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.5.12 of District Judge, Merta, whereby allowing an application preferred on behalf of the election petitioner, the respondent herein, for inspection of the record relating to election, has been allowed in terms that the unused votes shall be inspected and counted on the next date of hearing.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1-election petitioner, preferred an election petition questioning the election of the petitioner herein, as the member of Panchayat Samiti, Jayal from Ward No.7. The election petition was preferred with the averments that total number of votes obtained by the candidates plus rejected ballot papers in the first round of counting, admittedly exceeded by 50 votes in the second round of counting. It is alleged that admittedly, the total number of used ballot papers, whether valid, tendered or rejected and unused ballot papers also exceeds by 50 ballot papers to the number of ballot papers actually issued to the Polling Officer. As per the election record, 5720 ballot papers were allotted to various booths and out of the said votes, 3471 votes were casted and 2249 ballot remained unused. However, the total number of unused ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected comes to 3521. Precisely, according to the election petitioner, 50 votes were illegally added in the votes actually polled in favour of the returned candidate, the petitioner herein and thus she was wrongly declared elected.

(3.) It is to be noticed that in the first instance, the election petitioner preferred an application for summoning the entire election related record with ballot papers from the District Election Officer, Nagaur. The application was allowed by the District Judge vide order dated 5.10.10. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred a writ petition being No.9923/10, which was disposed of by this court by order dated 21.10.11 observing that "it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to deal with the record and ballot papers strictly in accordance with law and not to open the ballot papers before arriving at the necessary conclusion in that regard at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law. The other part of the impugned order whereby record has been called by the Trial Court does not appear operating against interest of justice and does not call for interference. It goes without saying that this record is also to be dealt with in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 shall, therefore, be read as modified to the extent indicated above."