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 Sections 81, 83 and 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 94 -A of the Conduct of Election Rules. 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') read with Order VII Rule 11 and Order XIV, 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 tobe 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 aaffidavit 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 94 -A 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.) REJOINDER has been filed on behalf of respondent No. I claiming therein that inpursuance of Clause (v) and (vi) of the instruction contained in Circular No. 470/INST/2000/J.S. 11/172 dated 19th January. 2000, the Election Commissioner at the end of counting of each round, a certificate in the prescribed pro forma, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A to the reply, is issued to be signed by the candidate and/or their election agent, and in the instant case, at the end of counting of each round, the election petitioner who was himself present in the counting area duly signed the certificate regarding his satisfaction of counting to be completed in all respects. The certificate of satisfaction of counting in all respects had been signed by the election petitioner himself at the end of third rounds in which 258 ballot papers said to be illegal were rejected. Thus the objection raised by the election petitioner at the end of 14th round of counting when he assessed that he has lost the battle by a margin of 37 votes only, cannot be allowed and the Election Commissioner has rightly rejected the prayer which was raised at the belated stage by order dated 26.2.2000 and, as such, the election petition has got no merit and it is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is fit to be dismissed.