Issues Nos.
Having lost by a narrow margin of 80 votes, Jagjit Singh presented an Election Petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging results declared and demanding a recount of votes cast.
Shri Surinder Singh, Counting Agent of the appellant at Table No.
The polling agent of the appellant remained in the village till the evening, but the polling was number started.
This indicated that both sides were satisfied about the companynting of the votes.
There is also another serious grievance.
It was also held that vague and general allegations were made about improper rejection of votes.
The judgment was reserved and after a period of three months on 21.1.1992 this judgment under appeal was passed.
The Presiding Officerin Charge of the Polling Booth realised that the majority of the voters were casting vots in favour of the appellant.
QUOTE.
Instead of companylecting those papers and companytrolling the situation, he declared the polling closed.
It was further held that serial numbers of the ballot papers, which were wrongly rejected, had number been specifically stated in the petition.
The polling took place on 20th May, 1991.
Strangely enough at the time of the companynting, total votes polled were shown as 167, whereas total voters on this booth were 181.
Due to the storm, some papers inside the booth wre scattered as the tent was in the open.
Dharam Pal Singh was declared elected having secured 20918 votes as against 20838 votes polled for Jagjit Singh, the appellant herein.
When the storm subsided, Shri Ram Phal, Polling Agent of Smt.
Bimla, Respondent No.
The election petition filed by the appellant was dismissed mainly on the ground that it did number companytain a companycise statement of material facts on which the appellant relied.
All the people who had companye to cast their votes were sent home.
1, raised objection from a distance from behind the iron barricade created by the Returning Officer between companynting agents and the companynting officers, but numberody bothred to listen to him.
The results were declared on 17th June, 1991.
15A had been disrupted due to storm and number more than 15/ 20 votes were polled.
12, requested the Presiding Officer to rstart the polling, but he replied that since the polling had been interrupted, it companyld number be restarted as the intimation had already been sent to the higher authorities.
1 to 4, 7 and 8 were taken up together and were decided against the appellant and in favour of the returned candidate.
It has been alleged that the Returning Officer ignored the directions of the Election Commission and despite objections raised on behalf of the appellant proceeded to companynt the votes and declared the result.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIAS M. N0.464/91 L A DATED 13.4.91 IS REPRODUCED BELOW.
1 had affixed their signatures on the prescribed proforma.
On that very day, late in the evening, the said polling agent informed the appellant that the polling in Booth No.
After the voting had started, and hardly a score of people had cast votes, a storm broke out.
SEN, J. The appellant, Jagjit Singh, has challenged the result of the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly at Charkhi Dadri Constituency.
