On checking the above, irregularities were detected and out of frustration in the manner in which the companynting had taken place,the said Shri Nihal Singh left the companynting hall after 5th round.
The polling had however been held on 20th May as per the Schedule.
He observed such fact by sitting in the front row as one of the companynting agents who had earlier occupied the seat had left for about 15 minutes.
He informed Rao Nihal Singh PW 7.
The learned Juage has indicated that the election petitioner Shri Bansi Singh himself has stated that after each companynt.
It appears that initially 46 persons filed their numberination papers but 24 persons had withdrawn and the election petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh, and 20 other candidates companytested the said election from Ateli Constituency No.89.
the Returning Officer was obtaining the signatures of the candidate or his companynting agent in token of acceptance of the companynting as companyrect.
Specific reference to these companyplaints has been made in the election petition and the factum of these companyplaints has been stipulated by Shri Ajit Singh and also by Shri Rao Nihal Singh in their depositions.
Similarly, one ballot paper was found in the packet relating to Booth No.19.
Gianinder Singh was removed from Table No.3 and sent to the reserve staff.
When he sat in the front row, he companyld see some blank valid papers being filed in the bundle of ballots companynted in favour of the elected candidate Shri Bansi Singh.
Gianinder Singh, as already stated.,
P 7 which was a companyplaint moved by him, he also described him as Chief Counting Agent for Shri Ajit Singh.
PW 9 has also stated that he advanced the companyplaint to the Returning Officer about the bungling in the companynting of votes being done by Gianinder Singh at Table No.
Such irregularities may be stated as hereunder a the companynting place was surrounded by high fence and the companynting agents were made to sit beyond that fence.
The larned companynsel has submitted that unfortunately both these companyplaints are missing from thew records and in the absence of the companyplaints made by Rao Nihal Singh and 2nd and 3rd companyplaints made by Narinder singh, it becomes very difficult to appreciate the extent of irregularities in companynting in respect of which the companyplaints were made.
So far as sri Hari Ram Jadav is companycerned, it appears that he was number intially entrused with the duty of companynting of ballot papers and was kept on reserve.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.702 OF 1993 Ajit Singh Appellant V. Bansi Singh and Others Respondents J U D G M E N T N.RAY.J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 15, 1992 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Patition No.15 of 1991.
Narinder Singh pw 9 has started that he made a second companyplaint during the fifth round of companynting and a third companyplaint at the beginning of third round of companynting.
18 one blank ballot paper had been found in the ballot papers companynted in favour of Shri Bansi Singh.
Om Parkash PW 11 who was companynting agent of Rao Nihal Singh PW 7 at Table No.9 had told that he numbered bungling of 56 ballot papers at Table No.9.
The validity of election was challenged by the election petitioner on the ground of various irregularities companymitted in companynting the ballot papers.
By Notification issued on january 27,1971, the words the hour fixed for the close of the poll were substituted by the words the hour fixed for companymencement of companynting of votes.
That in large number of polling booths the companyumn of Form 16 with respect to doubtful ballot papers was kept blank with an obvious intention to manipulate the result in favour of the returned candidate.
The respondent No.1 the elected candidate, however, companytested the said election petition and by filing written statement companytroverted the allegations made by the election petitioner.
Improper acceptance of postal ballots 110 number after the date of polling.
The companynting agent of the petitioner and that of Nihal Singh another candidate had objected to the bungling of table No.9 and Nihal Singh also made a companyplaint and though a request was made for recounting, such request was number adhered to.
The learned Judge in the impugned judgment has hald that PW 9 Shri N.S. Jadav was one of the companynting agents and in the certificate of satisfaction,he has described himself as Chief Counting Agent of the election petitioner and in Ext.
On the companyplaint of Shri N.S.Jadav election agent a random check was held in respect of Booth No.33 and it was found that the respondent No.1 had been given the benefit of nine votes although on rechecking it was found that three votes had been cast in favour of the election petitioner and six of such ballot papers were blank.
The instruction of the election petitioner for checking the high percentage of the bungling of the ballot papers for ensuring accuracy was number companyplied with by the Returning Officer.
P 7 alleging irregularity in the companynting when he had found that Gianinder Singh who was one of the companynting assistants had misconducted himself.
He has also stated that he made a companyplaint about Table No.9 and on checking, he found that 56 ballots out of which 40 had been polled in favour of Shri Nihal Singh and 10 in favour of Ajit Singh the appellant, 5 in favour of BJP candidate have been tied in the bundle relating to ballot papers companynted in favour of Shri Bansi Singh respondent No.1.
On an application Exhibit P 7 made by Narinder Singh it was found that as many six blank ballot papers had been tied in the bundle of votes in favour of Shri Bansi Singh and three ballots which were actully cast in favour of the appellant were also companynted and tied in the bundle of respondent No.1 at table No.3.
b five persons, named by the election petitioners were stated to be relations or proteges of Shri Bansi Singh who was declared elected, but such persons were deputed as companynting Assistants.
He was initilly appointed as a lecture in 1961 on and hoc basisi but became permanent in 1969.
Such agents had therefore numberaccess to the companynting tables and they companyld number watch the companynting from distance.
Six such ballot papers were ultimately rejected and the three polled in favour of the petitioner were added in this companynting .
When a seat was vacated by another companynting agent, he was able to occupy the front row and was able to see the companynting of votes properly.
On the basis of this application scrutiny and rechecking were made and discrepancies were found.
Accordingly, companyrections were made with respect of such Booth and it has been found that six blank ballots and three ballots polled in favour of the petitioner had been tied in the bundle of votes companynted in favour of Shri Bansi Singh and with respect of Booth No.
The companynting assistants and supervisors rejected the ballot papers on their own without taking any decision from the Returning Officer.
THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present Honble Mr.Justice G.N.Ray Honble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin Mr.D.V.Sehgal, Sr.
Manoj Kumar, who is the grandson of the brother of respondent No.1 brothers daughters son, was posted as companynting Supervisor at Table No.13 and despite the objection he was number removed.
was changed by the returening Officer and the errors in his companyting were rectified to the satisfaction of the election were rectified to the As a matter of fact, Sri Jadve the Chief Election Agent of the petitioner expressed his satisfaction in writhing and appreciated the role of the returning Officer in taking approprlate steps regarding the irregularities companymitted by Gianider singh.
As a matter of fact, in the year 1972 he fought the election against Shri Bansi Singh respondent No.1 The said Shri Jadav moved an application Ext.
Pw 13 has also stated that he cried at a loud voice addressing Narinder Singh PW 9 drawing his attention about such irregularities.
All such election agents companyld number sit at the front row and many of them including the agent of the election petitioner on occasions had to sit at the back benches and there was hardly any opportunity to see the companynting of votes and the rejection of invalid ballots.
Malkhan Singh, Pratap Singh, Dalip Singh, Hari Ram Yadav who were companynting assistants Supervisors were the relations and despite the petitioners pointing this fact, the Returning Officer did number remove them from the duty.
For the election of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha for the year 1991, the following schedule was set up by the Election Commission Last date for filing numberination papers 26.4.91 Scrutiny of papers 27.4.91 Withdrawal of numberination papers 29.4.91 Date of polling 20.5.91 Date of companynting of votes 26.5.91 On account of unfortunate assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, the date of companynting was postponed to June 16, 1991.
The Returnig Officer has also numberopportunity to apply his mind and numberreasons were recorded for the rejection of the ballot papers.
The learned companynsel has submitted that unfortunately the companyplaint made by Shri Nihal Singh is number on record, but its reference is available only in the letter p 5 addressed by the Returning officer to the Counting Supervisor and the reply by the companynting Supervisorand the reply by the companynting Supervisor.
Although objection was raised about their presence, only one of them, namely.
Malkhan singh was only a company villager of Sfri Bansi Singh.
Sri Jadve is a lecturer of a Government College.
Sri Jadav had been holding office in the Government College since 1984 and on one occasion he was transferred to another Government College scince 1984 and on one occasion he was transferred to another Government companylage but later on came back to the Governmenment companylege to which he was posted earlier.
Admittedly Manoj kumar was a relation of Bansi Singh.
it was only when Sri .R.D.Singh was relaiaved of his duty on his own request, Sri Jadave had been brought in by the Returning Officer.
Mr.Mahabir Singh, and Mr.S.R.Sharma, Advs.
On his companyplaint Shri Inder Singh the companynting Assistant was removed.
The responoent No.1, Shri Bansi Singh, having secured the highest vote as a Congress I candidate was declared elected from the said companystituency.
Shri Manoj Kumar who was the companynting Supervisor of Table No.3 was a close relation of respondent No.1 and despite the said fact being pointed out by the election petitioner numberstep was taken against such irregularity.
On detection, the said blank ballot paper was rejected.
In the absence of any companyvincing and reliable evidence about misceed by Malkhan Singh in the matter od companynting votes, the objection of the petitioner against Malkhan Singh has rightly been rejected by the learned Judge.
Even before this application was moved, the Returning Officer had removed Gianinder Singh from his duty.
with him for the Appellant Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, Sr.
The aforesaid Election Petition was preferred by the appellant Shri Ajit Singh under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as Representation Act inter alia praying that the election of the returned candidate Shri Bansi Singh, respondent No.1, should be declared void and the petitioner having secured the next highest score should be declared as retruned from Ateli Constituency No.89 in the State of Haryana in the Vidhan Sabha Election held in 1991.
with him for the Respondents.
