At the request of the election agent, a recounting took place under Rule 63 of the Rules 1961.
When the aforesaid six voters reached the companycerned polling station to cast their respective votes, they found that some imposters had already cast their votes by electronic voting machine.
The said application was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 19.11.2009.
Appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter called as the CPC and Section 87 of the Act 1951 for the deletion of paragraph Nos.
13 to 19 of the election petition which cumulatively specifically provide The names of Smt.
Kalpana Kunwar and Smt.
During the process of polling, there had been allegations/ challenges at various booths that at least 10 votes alleged to have been cast by imposters and thus, 10 tendered votes were cast under Rule 42 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 hereinafter called as the Rules 1961 .
Kamla W o Shri Champa Lal R o Near Charbhuja Temple, Village Gudla, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajasmand appeared at serial number 311 in Part 27 Shri Mana S o Shri Roda R o Guda, Village Sema, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, appeared at serial number 1122 in Part 61 Ms. Bargat Banu D o Shri Gani R o Talesara Bhawan, Ward No.
Kalpana Singh wife of Petitioner were one and the same person, but her name was registered at two places in the electoral rolls of the companystituency and hence she had cast two votes in the election Six 6 tendered votes cast in the election must be companynted and the six 6 votes originally polled against the tendered votes must be rejected.
More so, on the ground of delay, the application had been filed after framing of the issues.
19, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand appeared at serial number 146 in Part 73 Shri Dalu S o Shri Navla R o Village Soi Ki Bhagai, Post Khamnor, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand appeared at serial number 714 in Part 117 Smt.
The appellant preferred an application being I.A. No.6839 of 2010 dated 11.5.2010 to summon the marked companyies of the electoral rolls register of voters in Form No.17 A and list of tendered votes in Form No.17 B relating to the polling station number.68, 124 and 192 of the companystituency.
8212 of 2010 and 23.4.2010 in S.L.P C No.
Both the parties have filed several applications before the High Court during the trial of the election petition and the appellant has approached this Court time and again as is evident from the orders dated 16.12.2009 passed in S.L.P C No.
They companypleted the legal formalities by filling up Form 17 B and were allowed to have tendered ballot papers and, thereafter, they cast their votes.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
176 hereinafter called as the companystituency .
The appellant preferred S.L.P C No.
33725 of 2009 1.4.2010 in L.P. C No.
However, the said application has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2010.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The companynting of votes took place on 8.12.2008 and the appellant companytesting on the BJP ticket secured 62216 votes, while Shri P. Joshi INC secured 62215 votes.
The poll was held on 4.12.2008.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.5.2010 in S.B. Election Petition No.
1 of 2009 before the High Court of Rajasthan under Sections 80, 81, 100 1 d iii and Section 100 1 d iv of 1951 Act, inter alia, alleging that Smt.
13 to 19 of the election petition.
Nanu W o Shri Peer Mohammed R o Neelgar Basti, Village Railmagra, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand appeared at serial number 866 in Part No.
6839 of 2010 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
The appellant filed the written statement companytesting the said election petition and the trial is in progress in the High Court.
The respondent filed an election petition on 15.1.2009 being B. Election Petition No.
1 of 2009 and I.A. No.
The relevant pleadings, taken in the election petition, in this regard, are in paragraph Nos.
By the impugned judgment and order the High Court rejected the application dated 11.5.2010 praying for the summoning of certain documents on the ground that it was number permissible to summon the said documents, i.e., those tendered votes in respect of which numbere of the parties had taken the pleadings number an issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes and, thus, it was number permissible to lead any evidence on the fact which is number in issue.
Hence, this appeal.
FACTS A Notification under Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter called as the Act 1951 dated 10.11.2008 was issued by Election Commission for holding elections to companystitute 13th Legislative Assembly for the State of Rajasthan including the election scheduled for Nathdwara Legislative Assembly No.
10633 of 2010.
However, the result remained the same and, thus, the appellant was declared duly elected by a margin of one vote.
The appellant as well as the respondent filed their numberinations and were candidates of recognised National Parties.
180 and Shri Shamboo Lal S o Shri Tulsi Ram R o Kalbelia Basti, Village Banerdia, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand appeared at serial number 502 in Part 199 of the electoral roll of the companystituency.
