DEEP CHAND Vs. JAYNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under sections 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act, 1961 filed by Shri Deep Chand challenging the election of the respondent No. 1 Shri Jaynarayan to the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha from the Sadulpur constituency the result of which was declared on 14-6 77. The petitioner had lost the election by a margin of 759 votes. By this petition, he prays that the election of the respondent No. 1 be declared void, general scrutiny and recount may be ordered and then the result of the election be declared. The main grounds on which the election of the respondent is challenged are as follows: - (1) The Returning Officer rejected ballot papers which were valid. (2) Some times the correct total number of votes actually in the bundle of a candidate was not correctly declared. (3) Each Bandle ought to have been prepared of 50 ballot papers. Some bundles of the petitioner contained more than 50 ballot papers, but they were declared as having 50 ballot papers only. (4) The ballot papers in favour of other respondents were counted in favour of the respondent No. 1. (5) There exists a discrepancy in the total number of votes shown in Farm No. 16 and Form No. 20. (6) Numerous ballot papers cast in favour of the petitioner were mixed up with the ballot papers of other respondents and counted in their favour. (7) The number of votes in the bundles of Shri Jaynarayan respondent No. 1 were over counted. (8) The counting was done on 8 tables by 24 persons, while the petitioner was allowed only four counting agents. It was not possible for the counting agents to note the irregularities mentioned above. The particulars of these irregularities can only be submitted after inspection, leave to which will be prayed. (9) The result of election has been material affected by improper acceptance and refusal of votes and fey the incorrect sorting counting and bundling of ballot papers, if no such illegalities and irregularities were committed the petitioner should have won by a vast majority of votes.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 has denied the petition and has stated that the petitioner has not given any particulars in respect of the allegations and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. THE petitioner did not apply for a recount of votes before the Returning Officer under Rule 63 of the Coduct of Election Rules, 1961, and the allegations made in the petition are nothing but after thought. If the petitioner or his agent had any grievance against counting then he would have certainly applied for a recount. Without laying down any foundation for the allegations, the petition is not entitled either to inspection of the ballot papers or to a recount. THE petition deserves to be dismissed for want of material facts.

(3.) I have already reproduced above all the so called particulars furnished by the petitioner. Even though averments do not bring out any material facts so as to constitute a cause of action. Moreover, in Sunder Lal Chachni vs. Sampat Lal (12) it was laid down by this Court that where the petition is not based on the commission of a corrupt practice, no amendment is possible, permitting a new ground to be raised beyond the time limit for filing an election petition. I have already spoken of the distinction that section 8 of the aforesaid Act, draws between material facts and full particulars. Section 86 (a) does make a provision regarding amendment of particulars but is discreetly silent about addition or omission of material facts which therfore cannot be permitted if the time for filing the petition has expired. The particulars which the petitioner has supplied do not improve his petition any further.