1 instead of filing a written statement in the election petition, filed an application purported to be under Sections 81, 83 and 86 1 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rules read with Order 7 Rule 11 Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of maintainability.
The Tribunal entertained the said application and by reason of the impugned judgment it although held that the election petition does number suffer on account of any infirmity in the verification in the election petition or in the matter of service of a companyy of the election petition upon the respondent with the seal of the Oath Commissioner but proceeded to allow the said application, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant himself had given a certificate to the effect that the third round of companynting in Booth No.
1 herein returned candidate wherein prayers for setting aside the election of the returned candidate and a further relief that he may be declared elected from 318 Panki Legislative Assembly Constituency after inspection and scrutiny of 258 illegally rejected ballot papers in respect of Booth No.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 1074 The following Judgment of the Court was delivered This is an appeal against the judgment of Jharkhand High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant herein.
It was further companytended that having regard to the fact that the appellant herein having accepted that the aforesaid 258 ballot papers had been rejected on the third round of companynting in respect of Booth No.
The electors of 318 Panki Legislative Assembly Constitutency were called upon by the Election Commission to elect a member for the then Bihar Legislative Assembly.
1 herein was declared elected having been polled 17095 valid votes whereas the appellant herein was shown to have secured 17058 valid votes.
24th January, 2000 was fixed as the last date for filing numberination papers, whereas the date fixed for scrutiny of numberination papers was 25th January, 2000.
In the said application, the first respondent, inter alia, companytended that the signed companyy of the election petition number with the seal of the Oath Commissioner was number served upon him.
As per the programme, the polling was to take place on 12th February, 2000.
The appellant herein filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.
35 he is estopped from questioning his election.
It is against the said judgment of the High Court Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before us.
As a result of companynting of votes, the respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appellant herein filed a reply thereto.
35, were made.
