In companytrast the instant case is of double voting which has specifically been pleaded in the election petition filed on 29 7 1991 supported by affidavit and the names of the voters have been supplied in the lists annexed thereto.
In paragraph 5 A of the election petition, it was asserted that several voters, whose names had wrongly and accidentally been included in the electoral rolls of more than one polling stations in the Constituency had dishonestly voted in the election in both the polling stations taking undue advantage of the double inclusion of their names.
It was suggested that this had obviously been done by erasing the ink mark on the little finger of the voters in order that at the polling station where they voted the second time, neither the polling staff number the polling agents companyld become aware of the fraud.
It was also asserted that if any one or more of these voters claim and prove that their votes at one of the polling stations had been validly cast, it would then be obvious that the vote in the other polling station was cast by an impersonator and hence void and would be liable to be rejected.
The election petitioner on 26 9 1991 was allowed to amend the Election Petition so as to include 10 more cases of double voting.
The requisite declaration under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereafter referred to as the Act was made on 17 6 1991.
It was pleaded that all the 19 persons had voted twice and, according to Section 62 4 of the Act, both the votes polled were void.
Issue 1 struck by the High Court on that score was thus as under Were there impersonation of voters in the election and whether single voter did cast votes in more than one polling station?
The election petitioner further asserted that he had ascertained the names, roll numbers and other details of 19 voters and the polling stations in which they had voted, necessary details of which were furnished in Annexures 1 and 1 A to the election petition.
The companyresponding amendment application filed by the appellant for taking into account details of double voting having taken place in another neighbouring companystituency was rejected by the High Court for it was based on a new charge.
138 in the State of Kerala.
This written statement cum recrimination petition was filed on 10 9 1991.
The appellant had filed recrimination petition pleading that there were several other cases of double voting and reception of invalid votes in favour of the election petitioner.
Rather a recrimination petition was filed by the appellant to suggest similar void voting pertaining to other votes, which votes were alleged to have gone to the election petitioner.
The claim of the election petitioner was that he had obtained more valid votes than the appellant and was therefore entitled to be declared elected instead of the appellant for reasons stated in the election petition.
Polling took place on 12 6 1991.
He therefore suggested that it was necessary to pick out the votes cast by those persons and eliminate them from companysideration, ejectable as they were under Section 62 4 of the Act.
Issues were framed on 20 9 1991.
The Assistant Returning Officer who supervised the companynting announced the number of votes polled by the appellant as 49,516 and the first respondent as 49,500.
The petition is supported by an affidavit in accordance with Rule 94 A of the Statutory Election Rules.
The allegations in the election petition on this score were obviously denied by the appellant.
Since the appellant had obtained 21 votes in excess of the first respondent he was declared elected from the Constituency.
Issue 1 was to be found in the above terms.
An election petition was moved by the first respondent.
Counting took place on 16 61991.
The ministerial work for the purpose was assigned to the Joint Registrar of the High Court.
On such result the election petitioner entitled himself to be declared elected instead of the appellant.
Annexures 1 and 1 A are part and parcel of the petition.
Inspection was to be done in the presence of companynsel representing the election petitioner and the elected candidate.
On the basis of the former, the Kerala High Court has upset the election of the appellant herein.
The final result thereafter showed that the appellant had received 49,515 votes and the first respondent 49,494 votes.
There was a demand of recount which was companyceded to by the Assistant Returning Officer.
Further, those 19 persons had voted for the appellant.
The appellant was a Janata Dal supported candidate, and the first respondent was the sponsored candidate of the Indian National Congress 1 .
Challenge to the order of the High Court is on the anvil of the latter principle.
The appellant and the first respondent were companytesting candidates for the Kovalam Assembly Seat No.
Candidates of other political parties though being in the fray get numbersignificance insofar as the present matter is companycerned.
