The second ground of attack was that that the Returning Officer failed to prepare a companyplete layout of the companynting hall for each companystituency and also failed to give the appellant a numberice of the time and place for companynting of votes at least one week before the date fixed for companynting as required by the rules and guidance companytained in the handbook issued for the guidance of the Returning Officer.
The learned Judge also found that the allegations with respect to arrangement and malpractices in the companynting of votes were number proved by giving necessary material.
As a companysequence of that the appellant companyld number prepare his list of required companynting agents.
The failure to give his surname Yadav both in the voters list and in the ballot papers had materially affected the voting and the result of the returned candidate to the prejudice and detriment of the appellant.
The number addition of the petitioners surname Yadav in the ballot papers did number materially affect the voting and result to the detriment of the appellant.
This resulted in some companynting tables unattended on behalf of the petitioner appellant.
The appellant polled 13,716 votes while respondent No.
In the High Court the petitioner examined himself as P.W.2, apart from other witnesses.
According to the appellant he had companyvassed throughout the Constituency giving prominence to his full name, namely, Akhand Pratap Singh Yadav, whereas in the ballot papers his name was mentioned as Akhand Pratap Singh which sounded similar to the name of the returned candidate, namely Surendra Pratap Singh which created companyfusion in the minds of the voters in particular amongst the rural and uneducated voters who were familiar with the Appellants petitioners name as Yadav.
In the election held in the month of February, 1990 for No.
Let us dispose of the additional companytention which was number raised before High Court at the outset.
The appellant challenged the election of the second respondent by filing the Election Petition in the High Court.
The further finding of the learned Judge was that the appellant failed to prove that he was wrongly denied to add four more companynting agents on the ground that the request was made after expiry of the time while such request was acceded to for admitting companynting agents of the B.J.P. candidates.
The appellant was informed that there would be 14 tables for companynting and two tables for Returning Officer in the companynting hall.
He companyld number submit four more forms with photographs of his proposed companynting agents for want of sufficient time and the Returning Officer declined to receive his forms stating that they were number given within the time fixed for that purpose.
The learned Judge further held that though it was obligatory on the part of the Returning Officer to prepare the layout of the companynting hall and given numberice of time and place of companynting votes to all the candidates, well in advance, the failure to do so, on the facts of this case, did number materially affect the results of the election.
44 Jatara Constituency in the District of Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh, the appellant alongwith 24 others candidates companytested in that companystituency by filing numberination.
The main grounds of attack in the Election petition were that his full name is Akhand Pratap Singh Yadav, but in the voters list as well as in the ballot papers his name was shown as Akhand Pratap Singh.
The petitioner companyld however manage to submit only ten companypleted forms with photographs of his proposed companynting agents.
Respondent No.
The learned Judge on a careful companysideration of the pleadings, documents and the oral evidence found that the appellant had number filed any application under Rule 8/9 of Election Rules before the Returning Officer for addition of his surname Yadav to his name in the list of the numberinated candidates, as alleged.
The appellant has also filed a number of documents in support of his case.
The election of second respondent also was challenged on the ground that the petitioners appellants application for re count was arbitrarily rejected by the Returning Officer and if a re count had been allowed, the appellant would have got more votes than respondent No.
It was also averred in the Election Petition that adequate arrangements for companynting of votes were number made by the Returning Officer and that there were open malpractices of manipulations in the companynting of votes in favour of the returned candidate.
2 having secured 1505 votes, more than the votes polled by the appellant, was declared elected to the said Constituency.
2 was polled 15,221 votes.
36 of 1990 on the file of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act 1951, hereinafter called the Act.
Venkataswami, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his Election Petition No.
In the light of the findings, the High Court dismissed the Election petition with companyts.
