SURAJ MANDAL Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR RAY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the election petitioner and learned counsels for both the respondents on the point, that even if the election petitioner succeeds in proving the only point involved in the case that the polling agents of the petitioner were not allowed to function by the Presiding Officers in four Assembly segments, whether that shall be a good ground for declaring the election of the returned candidate void under Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The election petitioner had contested the Parliamentary election for 05, Kodarma Parliamentary Constituency, held in the months of March, April and May, 2014 in which the respondent No. 1 was the returned candidate, who had contested the election on the ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party, whereas the petitioner was the official candidate of Jharkhand Vikas Dal. It is an admitted position that the winning candidate had got 3,65,410 votes, whereas the petitioner had bagged only 6,966 votes in the election. Between the winning candidate and the petitioner there were twelve other candidates who had bagged much more votes than the election petitioner.

(2.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, as also on the basis of the proposed issues filed by the respective parties, it transpired that apart from the general issues of maintainability etc., the only main issue upon which the entire election petitioner rests, is the alleged appointment of one Ravi Kant Singh as his election agent by the petitioner, as the polling agents appointed by the said Ravi Kant Singh were not allowed to work as such at different polling booths by the Presiding Officers in four Assembly segments, as the Presiding Officers were provided with the specimen signature of one Jai Prakash Mandal, said to be appointed as election agent by the petitioner.

(3.) This being the only main issue in this election petition, learned counsels for both the sides were heard on the point whether even if the petitioner succeeds in proving his case that his election agent Ravi Kant Singh was not allowed to function as such, shall it be a good ground for declaring the election of the winning candidate to be void. In other words, whether such non -functioning of the election agent Ravi Kant Singh, or the polling agents appointed by him, had materially affected the election process so as to declare the election to be void under Sec. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.