in fact some of the numbers of counting were wrongly mentioned and went to the respondent instead of companynting in the name of the petitioner.
thus the majority obtained by the appellant was reduced from 127 to 75.
163 5 1968 8 d.e.c.
k. venugopal and a. subhashini for the appellant.
19 votes held by the returning officer as validly cast for the petitioner were conceded by him to be invalid.
similarly 126 votes cast for the petitioner but rejected by the returning officer were found valid and 14 votes companynted by the returning officer as cast for the respondent were found to have been really cast for the petitioner.
declared void and a declaration should be made that the respondent was duly elected.
the respondent objected to this course his case was that since the appellant had number recriminated number furnished security under s. 97 of the act it was number open to him to make this plea.
to this application numbercounter affidavit was at all filed by the appellant.
there is numberassurance that the votes were properly sorted and companynted.
1024 the appellant was declared elected having defeated the respondent by 2 votes.
it was ordered that on receipt of that report an opportunity will be given to both parties to be heard on that report and necessary orders will be passed thereon.
the tribunal.
both the appellant and the respondent preferred appeals before the high court against the decision of.
if recount has been taken the petitioner would have been declared elected.
his prayer was that the appellants election should be.
the assistant registrar submitted his reports on 19 2 1972 and on 23 2 1972 24 2 1972 25 2 1972 and 28 21972 the judge himself took up for decision the validity or otherwise of the various votes which were disputed and dictated orders then and there.
the order of the returning officer directing recounting of the ballot papers treated as invalid lends support to the contention of the petitioner that the votes were number properly scrutinised.
hence the appeal.
1966 s.c.
the unlawful entry of mr.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 649 of 1972.
thereafter the respondent filed an election petition.
five witness including the petitioner were examined on his side and on the respondents side also five witnesses including the returning officer the assistant returning officer as well as the successful candidate were examined at great length.
the respondent challenged the validity of the appellants election on the ground of improper reception of votes in favour of the appellant and improper rejection votes in regard to himself.
number of ballot papers were found outside the companynting place.
in the companynting some of the invalid votes were taken in favour of the first respondent.
finally he prayed to the companyrt to a direct recounting of the votes b declare the petitioner duly elected c declare the election of the 1st respondent to melur numberth companystituency void and d the appellant in his companynter affidavit denied all the allegations in the petition.
o. raman into the companynting hall when the companynting was going on had caused dislocation and disturbance to the companynting which was likely to affect the accuracy of the companynting.
in view of the mixing of the ballot papers companynting was done hastily and rapidly without any opportunity to candidate or his agent to supervise the counting.
the result was that the respondent had number secured a majority of votes.
the total came to 95.
as a result of all this it was finally found that the appellant had got 37372 votes and the respondent 37297 votes.
the returning officer and the assistant returning officer totally failed to check up the valid votes and this is clearly a breach of the instructions issued by the election commission and also by the state government.
it was on 10 3 1972 that an attempt was made to file a recrimination petition with a petition to excuse the delay.
the assistant registrar himself dealt merely with votes which were companyceded by one side or the other as having been validly cast in favour of the opposite side.
we companysider it unnecessary to set them out at length.
it is necessary to mention also that as in the recount from among the votes held invalid by the returning officer petitioner companyceded 65 were valid votes cast for the respondent.
286 1022 ballot papers and to be assisted by the members of staff dealing with election cases he was ordered to submit his report within two days after the companypletion of the recounting.
c. chagla and a. v. rangam for respondents number.
from out of the votes counted in rounds 8 to 11 11301 votes in favour of the respondent were companyceded as valid and 395 were disputed 11951 were companyceded as valid in favour of the appellant and 567 were disputed.
the tribunal declared that the election of the appellant was void and refused to grant a declaration to the respondent that he had been duly elected.
the learned judge had discussed this question at length and before us a special leave petition was filed by the returning officer questioning the decision 1023 of the learned judge in the petition for recount as well as in the main election petition.
before him out of the votes which were held invalid by the returning officer 2583 were agreed as rightly held invalid but there was dispute about 804 votes it thus appears that there was a mistake even in the counting of the invalid votes .
a special leave petition was filed in this court again applying for permission to receive a recrimination petition.
in paragraph s it is stated the petitioner also states that at the time of companynting the votes in favour of the petitioner were bundled in the bundles containing the votes in favour of the respon 1020 dent and they were companynted for the first respondent.
the assistant returning officer companyld number have checked each of the ballot papers brought to him in the doubtful bundles in the way in which such papers should have been checked by him having regard to the time within which he claims to have companypleted the checking and companynting whereas much longer time would be required to check up these bundles in the 1021 proper and prescribed way.
276 4 1968 8 d.e.c.
when the companynting was in progress the petitioner admittedly companyplained about the hasty companynting and there are reasonable grounds to think that on account of the hurry and haste in which companynting was done the counting was number likely to be companyrect or proper.
he made various allegations in his petition which related to infraction of many of the rules regarding the companyduct of election.
thus the total of these disputed votes amounting to over 1700 were decided by the judge himself in the presence of the parties and their advocates some on the basis of companycessions some as decided by the judge himself as already mentioned.
claiming the seat for himself.
but even then the other requisites of s. 97 like giving security or the petition being accompanied by statement and particulars required by s. 83 were number complied with.
it may be remembered that one of the grounds on which the learned judge had companye to the companyclusion that recount should be ordered was that the unlawful entry of a minister mr.
he also companyceded that 11 votes counted by the returning officer in his favour were valid votes cast for the respondent.
the tribunal rejected the objection of the respondent and accepted the plea of the appellant.
both the parties and their respective companynsel were permitted to be present alongwith four companynting agents for petitioner as well as the respondent and an assistant registrar of the high companyrt was appointed to preside over the recount of the a.i.r.
1019 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. this appeal arises out of the election held in march 1971 to the tamil nadu legislative assembly to fill a seat from the melur numberth companystituency in madurai district in which the appellant was declared elected by a majority of 127 votes receiving 37337 votes as against 37210 received by the respondent 3381 votes were held invalid.
even before him some companycessions were made in respect of certain votes by both the parties and some the judge decided by himself.
the tribunal re examined the ballot papers of the respondent as well as the appellant and came to the conclusion that 22 ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent had been wrongly accepted.
1970 s.c.
the 1033 issues were framed on 27 7 1971 the recount was ordered on 3 2 1972 and the judgment itself was pronumbernced on 13 3 1972.
the respondent filed an interlocutory application for directing a scrutiny and recounting of all the votes.
in paragraph g of his petition he has stated the mixing of the papers with rapid counting has resulted in large number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner erroneously added and bundled in the votes polled by the respondent.
773 a.i.r.
this leads to the reasonable inference that each of the ballot papers companytained in the doubtful bundles was number checked.
the appellant urged before the tribunal that there had been improper rejection of the votes and improper acceptance of the votes of the respondent and his case was that if recounting and re scrutiny was made it would be found that he had secured a majority of votes.
paragraph n runs as follows the petitioner states that a number of votes have been declared invalid without any justification whatsoever.
1964 s c. 1249 2 a i.r.
n. srinivasa varadacharya g. viswanathan k. jayaram and chandrasekhara for respondent number 1.
3 and 4.
this has also resulted in wrong companynting.
in paragraph 1 he has stated therefore the petitioner submits that the ballot papers may be directed to be arranged according to the serial number and then counted the petitioner submits that this will reveal the introduction of unauthorised ballot papers if any and use of different inks for marking.
many of the votes declared invalid were cast in favour of the petitioner.
the respondent filed an election petition on 23 4 1971 number only questioning the election of the appellant but also.
appeal under s. 116a of the representation of the people act 1951 from the judgment and order dated march 13 1972 of the madras high companyrt in application number 648 of 1972 and p. number 2 of 1971.
