The details of enrollment of some such voters stated to have been enrolled in more than one place in the said companystituency are mentioned in annexure 4 to the election petition.
Such inspection, if any, can be permitted only after companysideration of evidence of both the parties.
The High Court vide the impugned order permitted the parties to inspect registers 17A prepared under the said Rule.
Thus, 250 persons who are family members as well as agents and companyvillagers and the supporters of respondent number 1 and enrolled in more than two places in voter list in the same companystituency and they have cast votes at both the places and as such 500 void votes have been companynted in favour of respondent number 1 and if such void votes are deleted by simple arithmetical calculations, respondent number 1 has secured less number of votes than the petitioner and therefore on this ground alone the election of respondent number 1 is number only fit to be set aside but on the other hand the election petitioner is entitled to declare election in place of respondent number 1 by securing the majority votes than the respondent number 1.
In order to prove his case the respondent number 1 herein adduced evidence on his behalf and the matter is companying up for the evidence of the appellant respondent.
It is alleged that the family members of the appellant are enrolled as voters from three places in the companystituency and the appellant himself is enrolled as a voter in more than one place.
The appellant herein filed a detailed written statement inter alia denying the averments made and allegations levelled in the election petition.
Brief facts leading to this appeal may have to be numbericed before we proceed to companysider the validity and companyrectness of the impugned order.
It is alleged that the election of the appellant may have to be declared void on the solitary ground that there are large number of voters roughly about 600 were enrolled as voters from more than one place and majority of such voters have voted twice in favour of respondent number 1 In this regard, it is curious to indicate that there are 250 persons of family of respondent number 1 including the gotias agantes and companyvillagers who were supporters of respondent number 1 have voted twice from both the places in favour of respondent number 1.
The case of the first respondent petitioner is that he was defeated in the elections held in the month of October November, 2005 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 172, Lakhisarai Assembly Constituency by a narrow margin of 82 votes only on account of several irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been companymitted by the appellant and his election agent together with his workers and supporters.
It is at this stage the first respondent herein filed an application under Rule 93 1 dd of the Rules seeking inspection of the packets companytaining registers of voters in Form 17A in the said application it is stated that inspection of the registers of voters in Form 17A is required for the purposes of substantiating the allegations of double voting by the relations and supporters of the appellant.
The first respondent herein filed Election Petition No.1 of 2006 challenging the election of the appellant herein on various grounds.
SUDERSHAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 15.9.2008 passed in Election Petition No.1 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna Election Tribunal wherein the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Rule 93 1 dd of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
