BRIJ SUNDER SHARMA Vs. SHRI RAM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by one Brij sunder Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) whose election to the rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Bundi constituency was challenged by shri Ram Dutt, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) by an election petition, challenging an order of the Election Tribunal Kota directing a recount of the ballot papers.

(2.) THE election was contested by five candidates and the result of the counting was as follows: (2) The election was contested by five candidates and the result of the counting was as follows: 1. Shri Brij Sunder Sharma. . . 8849 2. Shri Ram Dut. . . 8821 3. Shri Ram Chandra. . . 4661 4. Shri Ranglal. . . 2360 5. Shri Ravi Dutta. . . 782

(3.) THE Returning Officer rejected 1032 ballot papers as invalid. The petitioner, who secured 28 votes more than the respondent, was declared elected. The respondent challenged the election of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that about 100 valid votes cast in his favour were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, that a number of invalid votes were wrongly counted in favour of the petitioner, that mistakes were made in sorting the ballot papers with the result that votes cast in his favour were counted in favour of the petitioner and that in consequence the result of the election was materially affected. It was asserted in the election petition that it was not physically possible for the petitioner or his election and counting agents to note the particulars of such ballot papers and that their full particulars will be furnished after an inspection of the ballot papers for which permission of the Tribunal will be sought. A prayer was made for general scrutiny and recount. It was alleged that most of the officers entrusted with the work of the counting were under the influence of the petitioner. It was stated that he was a Minister in the Rajasthan Government from 1952 to 1957. It was mentioned that two applications for recount (Exs. 1 and 2) were made by him to the Returning Officer but they were improperly rejected.