Under the proviso to Rule 56A 2 g of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rules a ballot paper shall number be rejected on the ground that it bears a serial number or a design different from the serial number or design of the ballot papers authorised for use at a particular polling station if the Returning Officer is satisfied that such defect had been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of the presiding officer or polling officer.
The margin of difference between the votes polled to the appellant and respondent 1 was 5 in the original companynting and 10 in the recounting made by the Returning Officer.
The High Court thought that the rejection of those ballot papers was probably due to inadvertence to the said proviso but however, it held that it is difficult to record a definite finding as to whether those ballot papers were rightly or wrongly rejected.
Thus this ground alleged by respondent 1 relates to improper rejection of about 100 ballot papers said to have been cast in favour of respondent 1 in the recounting by the Returning Officer.
In the original companynting 1277 ballot papers were rejected as invalid but in the recounting by the Returning Officer 1377 ballot papers were rejected on that ground.
On merits the appellant admitted that recount of the ballot papers of all the candidates was ordered by Returning Officer but denied the other allegations made in the election petition and companytended that the recounting was properly made and that there is numberground to order recounting by the Court.
However, it was alleged that the Returning Officer recounted the ballot papers of the appellant and respondent 1 alone and therefore the recount was void.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered the District Election Officer, Ambala to produce only the rejected ballot papers for rechecking and recounting by the Court through the District Judge Vigilance , Punjab in its presence and under its supervision.
As stated already, respondent 1 prayed number only recounting 1107 and setting aside the election of the appellant but also for a declaration that he is the duly elected candidate.
Admittedly some ballot papers meant for the Kalka companystituency had been issued for use in this companystituency and they had been cast in favour of respondent 1 and were rejected on the ground that those ballot papers were number meant for use in this companystituency.
This was naturally opposed by the learned companynsel for the appellant before the High Court.
when questioned in this regard, was unable to say anything positive in regard to the matter though he had admitted in his evidence that some ballot papers meant for use in the Kalka companystituency had been used in this companystituency and were rejected.
On the pleadings the material issue framed by the High Court was as to whether respondent 1 is entitled to recount.
There objections were rejected by the High Court by and order dated 4.10.1982.
P.W.4/4 and the entries made in the two forms No.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd February, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No.
The appellant alone companytested the election petition.
The additional ,100 ballot papers which were alleged to have been originally accepted in favour of respondent I were alleged to have been rejected by the Returning Officer under the influence of the Naib Tehsildar Election of Ambala who was alleged to have been favouring the appellant.
P.W.1/1 and W.1/2A, that the ballot papers of all the candidates were recounted by the Returning Officer and that in the application Exh.
19 were alleged to have been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were meant for the Kalka companystituency.
In his companynter affidavit he raised two preliminary objections, namely, that companyies and annexures supplied to him were number duly attested to be true companyies under the signature of respondent I and therefore the election petition was liable to be dismissed and that the election petition had number been properly verified.
In these circumstances the High Court found that while making his quasi judicial decision regarding the doubtful ballot papers the Returning 1108 Officer companysulted the Naib Tehsildar and thus allowed his opinion to influence his own discretion in accepting or rejecting the doubtful ballot papers.
Respondent 1 pleaded nine other grounds in his election petition but did number lead any evidence or advance any argument in respect of the same.
20, Exh.
6 of 1984.
Though the Returning Officer, R.W. 3.
P.W. 2/5 presented to the Returning Officer by respondent 1 immediately after the recounting was over numbergrievance was made by respondent 1 that the ballot papers of any other candidate were number recounted.
After the recounting was accordingly made by the District Judge Vigilance , Punjab under the supervision of the Court it was found that respondent 1 and the appellant had gained 14 and 8 more votes respectively in addition to the votes already companynted in their favour by the Returning Officer in his recounting.
Three ballot papers alleged to have been cast in favour of respondent I at booth No.
Respondent 1 alleged in the election petition that the Returning Officer initially ordered the recount of the ballot papers of himself and the appellant in respect of all the booths after a sample checking but on the application of the appellant that the ballot papers of all the candidates should be recounted, to which respondent 1 companysented, he ordered recount of all the votes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court found that the allegation of respondent 1 that the Returning Officer obtained the guidance of the Naib Tehsildar, Dhan Singh, in making his decision regarding doubtful votes is probablised by the evidence of the appellant, R.W.1, and his election agent Suraj Bhan, R.W.2 who have admitted in their evidence that the Naib Tehsildar had number been put on any particular duty during the recounting and that he was sitting near the dais and was companysulted by the Returning Officer sometimes on the question of the doubtful nature of some ballot papers.
In reaching this companyclusion the High Court took numbere of the fact that numbersuch grievance was made by respondent 1 in his application Exh.
had stated in his oral evidence that only the ballot papers of the appellant and respondent 1 were in fact rechecked and recounted the High Court found on the basis of his report Exh.
Shanti Bhushan, N.M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant.
3, Sadhura Scheduled Caste reserved companystituency in the election held on 19.5.1982 The companytest was between the appellant and 12 others including respondent 1, Parbdu Ram, who was the election petitioner.
hereinafter referred to as the Act Therefore, it was companytended before the High Court on behalf of respondent 1 that the rejected votes of the appellant, the returned candidate, cannot be scrutinised and that the appellant cannot have the benefit of the 8 ballot papers found to have been wrongly rejected.
R.W. 3, that numbervalid ballot paper cast in favour of respondent 1 was rejected on any such flimsy ground.
The High Court rejected the next ground alleged by respondent 1 for claiming recount, namely, that about 100 ballot papers cast in his favour were rejected illegally because they bore some slight indecipherable impressions of the finger or the thumb of the voters on the ground that sufficient acceptable evidence was number available to rebut the evidence of the Returning Officer.
The observer, W. 4, has admitted in his evidence that respondent 1 took objection to the presence of the Naib Tehsildar during the recounting by the Returning Officer.
Respondent 1 challenged the election of the appellant on the ground that the companynting was number proper and invalid and he prayed number only for recounting of the votes but also for declaration that he is the duly elected candidate.
1451 of 1984.
The appellant secured 20981 votes while respondent 1 secured 20971 votes and he was declared to have been elected.
Kapil Sibal, R N. Karanjawala and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala for the Respondent.
The appellant, Bhag Mal, was declared elected as a Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly Vidhan Sabha from No.
The following Judgments were delivered 1106 VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing Election Petition 6 of 1982 filed by respondent 1.
But the appellant had number filed any recrimination application under s. 97 1 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The Returning Officer, R.W. 3.
Out of the 100 votes rejected by the Returning Officer in the recounting as invalid 93 related to the other candidates and only 7 related to the appellant and respondent 1, and the reason for rejection of those 7 ballot 1109 papers was number quite clear to the High Court, There is also the doubt, according to the High Court, as to the companyrectness or otherwise of the rejection of the ballot papers meant for use in the Kalka companystituency but actually used in this companystituency.
P.W. 2/5 filed soon after the recounting was over.
