The relief sought for by the appellant was the setting aside of the election of the respondent No.
1 as also declaring the appellant as elected.
1 in their respective election petition and recrimination petition pleaded the material facts with relevant particulars and numberdeficiency was to be found in the pleadings.
The standing companynsel for the Election Commission of India made available to the learned Judge a circular bearing No.
1 on very many grounds.
Decoding was carried out under the supervision of Shri A.A. Seshsai, Senior Technical Officer of the Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad.
On the abovesaid findings, the learned designated Election Judge held, vide his order dated 9.1.2002, that the case warranted recount and decoding of votes cast through electronic voting machines.
The recrimination petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, in the prescribed manner, and was accompanied by the security deposit as required by Section 117 of the Act.
1 filed a special leave petition in this Court putting in issue the order dated 9.1.2002, which was dismissed by this Court, forming an opinion that the matter was yet to be finally decided by the High Court and interference at an interim stage was uncalled for under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The learned Judge also called for a detailed report from the standing companynsel for the Election Commission of India with regard to the procedure to be followed in the matter of decoding based on which directions would be given after hearing all the parties.
The learned designated Election Judge framed all the relevant issues arising from the pleadings and set down the petition for trial.
Prima facie the case of double voting by two persons, thirteen votes cast by impersonation and nine votes cast by persons whose names were removed from the final electoral roll were made out.
III dated 2.6.1999 issued to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States with regard to the procedure to be followed in the matter of decoding of votes cast through electronic voting machines.
The learned Designated Election Judge heard the learned companynsel for the parties in the light of the result of decoding as reported to the Court.
The appellant in his election petition submitted, inter alia, that there were three voters who had voted twice, that there were nine voters who were actually dead, thirty voters were actually aborad and twenty seven voters were actually out of station and hence these forty voters were number available for voting on the date of polling and yet ballots in their names were cast by impersonators that five voters who reached the polling station were told that impersonators had already cast ballots in their names and therefore they were permitted to cast tender ballots that forty eight voters companyld number cast their ballot as the companyy of the voter list supplied at booth No.
Appellant, Ahammed Kabeer 55617 2.
125 Eravipuram Legislative Assembly Constituency were held on 10.5.2001.
A case was also made out on evidence for companynting a tendered vote which was ignored by the Returning Officer.
The Election Commission of India submitted a report, rather a numbere, regarding the procedure to be followed in the matter of decoding.
185 was defective and the relevant pages on which the names of these voters appeared were missing that six voters entitled to exercise their franchise through postal ballots companyld number do so as some impersonators had exercised franchise in their place that there were postal ballots attested by incompetent officers and hence invalid and so on.
The respondent No.
He was examined as a companyrt witness and the documents which came into existence during the process of decoding were marked as exhibits.
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. recorded a dissenting opinion.
51/8/99 Vol.
Respondent No.2 11108 4.
There were five candidates in the fray including the appellant and the respondent No.
The poll was held by using electronic voting machines.
Briefly stated the pleas raised by way of recrimination by the respondent No.
An election petition was filed by the appellant laying challenge to the election of the respondent No.
On 17.1.2002, the respondent No.
On 5.2.2002, thirty one votes were decoded and one tender ballot was opened.
There were other illegalities companymitted during polling and also at companynting, alleged the election petition.
Respondent No.5 2756 The first respondent was declared elected defeating his nearest rival, the appellant, sic a margin of 21 votes.
Respondent No.4 5.
1 filed his written statement and also delivered a recrimination numberice as companytemplated by proviso to Section 97 1 of the Act.
1 are that there were four persons who had voted twice in favour of the appellant and therefore the votes were liable to be excluded from the votes companynted in favour of the appellant that five persons were dead and number available for casting the ballots yet impersonators cast ballots in the names of the dead persons in favour of the appellant that seven persons whose names were deleted from the voters list were also permitted to vote by the Presiding Officer, which ballots were cast in favour of the petitioner.
It is number necessary for us to go into other details of the pleadings and it would suffice to state that both the appellant and the respondent No.
Respondent No.1, A A. Azeez 55638 3.
Vide order dated 9.1.2002, the learned designated Election Judge found that there was a narrow margin of twenty one votes between the votes secured by the appellant and the first respondent while the appellant had made out a prima facie case for declaring twenty nine votes secured by the first respondent as invalid, the first respondent had made out a prima facie case for invalidating three votes cast in favour of the appellant.
Elections for the Kerala Legislative Assembly Seat from No.
C. Lahoti, J. Unsuccessful as a candidate and also as an election petitioner, the appellant is in appeal, exercising his statutory right of appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter the Act, for short against the decision of the High Court dismissing his election petition.
