2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 but neither the Returning Officer number the supervisory staff or the companynting assistants paid any heed to, the companyplaints of the petitioner.
The said application, again was declined by the Re turning Officer on frivolous grounds.
42, Salhawas S.C. No.
The said voters polled their votes at two different places in the same companystituency and in other companystituencies i.e. Jhajjar Assembly Con stituency No.
45, Kalanaur No.
43, Bahadurgarh No.
but the said application was rejected by the Returning Officer inter alia stating doubtful ballot papers of each table at each round were decided after giving full opportunity to the candidates as well as their agents and their due objections removed at every stage, numberwithstanding the fact that the petitioner claimed the recount on the grounds that doubtful and invalid votes were being companynted in favour of the respondent and also that several votes for petitioner were included in the bundles of the respondent, the Returning Officer did number advert to these objections and declined the application for recount on totally frivolous and irrelevant grounds.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 45 of 1972.
That the petitioner claimed recount of the votes on account of the various irregularities and illegalities companymitted by the Returning Officer, some of which have been stated above by an application dated 13 3 1972 at about 00.50 hours.
55, Jattusana No.
The petitioner and his companynting agents requested the Returning Officer that the same illegality or irregularity was being companymitted at companynting tables No.
Again the petitioner moved another application at about 2.3O A.M. before the result was declared by the Returning Officer, inter alia giving the grounds companynting had been number only irregular but almost illegal and partial and also specifying particular companynting tables 1, 5, 10 and 12.
That about 100 valid votes of the petitioner have been wrongly and illegally rejected I by the Returning Officer and likewise about the same number of invalid votes of the respondent have been declared valid and included as valid votes for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
41, Hasangarh No.
As regards issues 7 a and 7 b , which relate to the irregularities companymitted during the companyrse of the companynting, it is necessary to set out the companytents of paragraphs 27 to 31 of the election petition in extenso That the companynting of the ballot papers started an 12 3 72 at 6.30 p.m. There were 12 tables in the room on Which there were companynting Assistants and the Supervisor on each table and each candidate had one companynting agent on each table.
44, Beri Assembly Constituency No.
The petitioner applied for the companyies of both the applications for the purposes of this Election Petition but the Returning Officer issued a companyy of the one made at 00.50 hours and has declined to give a companyy of the second application for reasons best known to him.
The Petitioner was leading by 239 votes after the close of the third round in spite of all the illegalities and irregularities companymitted in the companynting.
Particularly When the fourth round started the main companyplaint of the companynting agents was that the companynting Assistants and Supervisors are preparing bundles for the petitioner of more than 50 ballot papers and declaring the same to be a bundle of 50 votes whereas in the case of respondent they were including less than 50 ballot papers in the bundle as required by the rides.
This caused a lot of flatter and a companyplaint was made to the Returning Officer.
At table No.
6 recounting was ordered and it was found that 76 ballot papers of the petitioner were included in the bundles of the respondent in the fourth round.
The companynting companytinued right up till 2.50 A.M. on 13 3 72.
44 The said persons are near or distant relations or friends of the respondent.
During the companyrse of companynting the companynting agents of the petitioner several times objected that on tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, the Counting Assistants and Supervisors were number properly bundling the votes for the candidates.
Issues 1, 3, 4, and 5 form one group issue 6 relates to a companyrupt practice issues 7 a and 7 b stand by themselves.
That about 500 votes of the petitioner have been wrongly companynted and included in the votes of the respondent.
2727 of 1972.
The respondent totally repudiated these allegations and they also therefore give rise directly to issues 7 a , b and c as rightly held by, the learned High Court Judge.
The appeal itself is against the order dated 17th August 1972 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the election petition in respect of issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 a and 7 b Issue 2 itself was number challenged before this, Court.
K. Sen, Bakhtawar Singh and M. M. Kshatriya, for the respondent.
K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
58 and outside Haryana in Delhi Union Territory in village Ghewra, Mitrau, Dichau and Charagh Delhi.
38, Pataudi No.
The respondent thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the election.
That the respondent got the same votes registered in two or more different places in Haryana Assembly Jhajjar Constituency No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal arises out of the election to the, Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar companystituency held on 11 3 1973 in which the appellant was declared elected on receiving 24060 votes as against 23975 votes received by the respondent.
That a large number of Government servants numbering 158 who were number present in their respective villages and did number cast their votes in fact, have been impersonated and their votes have been polled in favour of the respondent.
