BIDESH SINGH Vs. MADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application (I. A. No. 595 of 2001) has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 under Ss. 81, 83 and 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules') read with Order VII Rule 11 and Order IV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the Election Petition on preliminary issue on the ground that the Election Petition is not maintainable.

(2.) It is stated that from the Election Petition, it would not be evident as to what were the number of those ballot papers, what were the reasons shown by the Returning Officer for rejection of those ballot papers whereas the Agents of all candidates used to be present at the Counting Counters and used to certify every round of counting, thereafter only the result of those rounds used to be declared. These are the material facts which constitute cause of action which are lacking in the Election Petition. It is further stated that specific allegation about rejection of 258 ballot papers by the Returning Officer has been made in the Election Petition whereas after announcement of the result, the election agent of the election petitioner raised both written and oral protest which was rejected vide order dated 26-2-2000. It is further alleged that copy of the election petition was served on the lawyer of this respondent on 23-3-2001 which does not contain the seal of the Oath Commissioner in the Verification and Affidavit portion nor each and every page of the election petition contains the statement of the election petition of it being a true copy of its original. The affidavits are also not in accordance with Rule 94A of the said Rules. The entire documents annexed as annexures to the election petition do not constitute a cause of action for filing the Election Petition as the Counting Agent of the Election Petitioner had himself filed the correctness of counting of third round in which votes of Booth No. 35 were counted and after certification of its correctness in all respects, the result of that round was announced. Thus the petitioner has no mouth to raise any objection thereafter which has already been certified by him after counting of third round and, as such, this application is fit to be dismissed in limine.

(3.) Reply has been submitted on behalf of the Election Petitioner against the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.1 stating therein that the objection raised in the application cannot be adjudicated and decided without any evidence and, therefore, the objections raised in the petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1 should not be taken up in piecemeal. It is further stated that there is proper compliance of Ss. 81, 83 and 86(1) of the Act. The petitioner has not made any allegation of corrupt practice, therefore, there is no necessity of compliance of Rule 94A of the Rules. The respondent No.1 made vague and incorrect objection regarding non-compliance of the Rules under Chapter XXI-E of the Patna High Court Rules. Thus the objection petition regarding its maintainability is fit to be dismissed.