BHANWAR LAL BHADU Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly pleaded the facts in the instant petition and relevant for adjudication of controversy in hand are that:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the pleadings in the Election Petition of the respondent-Ved Prakash shows that the names of certain voters had been deleted from Ward No.10 of Gram Panchayat, Gangani and their names had been reflected in Ward No.12 of Village Gangani and thus, the voters, whose names were deleted from Ward No.10, had casted their votes at both the places i.e. at Ward No.10 and Ward No.12. Learned counsel submitted that in the reply filed by the petitioner-nonapplicant as well as the State, the submissions made in the Election Petition were denied and on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Election Tribunal framed four issues, out of which, Issue Nos.1 and 4 were decided in favour of the election petitioner/respondent No.1 and Issue No.2 was also decided against the petitioner-non-applicant. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the Issue No.2 framed by the learned Election Tribunal was very specific and the learned Election Tribunal was under an obligation to discuss the matter in consonance with the other issues framed. Since the Issue No.2 framed was that whether the persons whose names have been deleted from Ward No.10 from Sr. No.440-578 and these names having been added in Ward No.12 had casted their votes in favour of petitioner at both the places by resorting to illegal and corrupt means in connivance with returning officer and his team? Learned counsel further submitted that the finding on Issue No.2 is cryptic and without any basis. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that at the behest of the petitioner, the deleted voters of Ward No.10 had casted their votes at both the places i.e. Ward No.10 and Ward No.12 in favour of petitioner. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that a set of same persons had casted their votes at Ward No.10 and Ward No.12 in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that as per the pleadings in the Election Petition, though there is no disclosure of the fact as to what is the serial numbers of those persons whose names have been deleted from Ward No.10, however, the learned Election Tribunal has come to the conclusion that 72 persons whose names have been deleted from Ward No.10 had casted their votes in both the wards.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that while dealing with the Issue No.2, the learned Election Tribunal has taken note of the fact that certain persons have illegally casted their votes from Ward No.10 although there were no pleadings to that effect. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the learned Election Tribunal has taken into consideration the material and evidence which was neither pleaded nor was subjected to scrutiny by any party.