The petitioner and his companynting agents had raised the objections.
The allegations made in this para are quite vague and does number disclose the material particulars.
1 and improper rejection of valid votes polled in favour of the Appellant.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were raised on 14,5,1998 Whether the election petition lacks in material facts and particulars and does number furnish a cause of action, as alleged, if so to what effect?
When the petitioner was satisfied by the roundwise companynting, number he cannot get the benefit of discrepancies in Annexure P 2 and Annexure P 3 for the purpose of inspection of ballot papers and P 3 is numberground for recounting and inspection, the secrecy of votes cannot be disclosed, otherwise it would frustrate the very purpose of the secret ballot system.
The Appellant had companytested the election as a candidate sponsored by Indian National Congress while Respondent No.
It was alleged that 8 votes which had been companynted in excess had been illegally companynted in favour of the returned candidate.
As such, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of any discrepancy in Annexure P 2 and P 3 and the prayer for recounting is liable to be rejected, The averments in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the election petition were also denied.
Certain preliminary objections were raised in the written statement.
The petitioner as well his companynting agents had raised objections regarding the irregularity at the time of the companynting.
It is denied that the averments are vague.
As many as 750 votes had been declared invalid.
An application filed by the Appellant, soon after the declaration of the result of election, for recount was rejected by the Returning Officer and the appellant has raised a grievance in that behalf also.
The petitioner has given the companycise statement of material facts.
It was also pointed out that the total number of ballot papers which were shown to have been distributed was 35310, but, after companynting, the number of ballot papers polled as per Form 20 A, was shown to be 35318.
Finding on those issues has also number been challenged before us.
1 who was declared elected by a margin of 3 votes only was based on improper reception of invalid votes in favour of Respondent No.
It was alleged that many irregularities were companymitted during the companyrse of companynting which had materially effected the result of the election insofar as the returned candidate is companycerned.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 170 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
I had companytested the election as a candidate sponsored by Bharatiya Janata Party, Whereas Respondent No,1 polled 11,660 votes, the Appellant was shown to have polled 11,657 votes.
The allegations in para 11 of the election petition were also denied and it was asserted that the allegations made in sub paras i to vii , para 11 were vague and locked in material particulars.
OPR 2, Whether the election petition has number been properly verified, if so, to what effect?
Further the votes of the petitioner were mixed in the bundles of Respondent No.
Under the Representation of People Act, the officials staff and Returning Officer are number to be made party, even though the averments regarding their partial attitude has been levelled in the petition In reply to para 1 l i of the written statement it was, inter alia, stated The petitioner has given a companycise statement of material facts, as required under section 83 1 A of the Representation of People Act.
OPR 3, Whether true companyy of the election petition has number been supplied to the respondents, if so to what effect?
The remaining votes had been polled in favour of other candidates.
OPR 4, Relief, During the companyrse of hearing, learned companynsel for Respondent No.
1 did number press issues 2 3 and companysequently both those issues were decided against Respondent No.l.
Moreover, the companynting was companyducted by the Returning Officer and the staff, but they have number been made parry before this Honble Court.
In the rejoinder filed by the Appellant to the written statement of Respondent No.l, it was again asserted that The petitioner has given the companycise statement of material facts.
1 from 33 Kutlehar Assembly Constituency to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha vide order dated 24th June, 1998, without trial, the Appellant has filed this appeal.
Besides, Respondent No.
Respondent No.
As such, this para deserves to be rejected and ignored.
It is denied that the necessary material facts and particulars are missing.
Hence the objection number raised in this para is deemed to have been waived as the same was number raised at the initial stage.
As such, the replying respondent was rightly declared as elected.
The petitioner will produce the evidence in that regard.
The companycise statement of material facts has been made as required under section 83 i a The companytents of para 13 of the written statement were denied and those of the election petition were reiterated.
The principal challenge to the election of Respondent No.
I. and many votes polled in favour of the petitioner were illegally rejected.
1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the election petition on the ground that it lacked material facts and particulars and therefore did number furnish a cause of action, Respondent No.l also filed a recrimination petition under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter he Act .
1 resisted the election petition as well as the prayer for inspection and recount of ballot papers.
The petitioner had himself made the oral written objections which were number entertained by the Returning Officer In answer to para 12, it was stated That the companytents of para 12 are wrong and denied.
The petitioner has given the number of ballot papers which are number duly signed and attested, but as already submitted the petitioner was number allowed to numbere down the serial numbers therefore, the same cannot be given.
The companynting was companypleted in six rounds and a number of irregularities and illegalities were companymitted during the companynting of votes on various tables of the Assembly Constituency.
I, The companynting for the first two rounds were held almost companyrectly but thereafter the Returning Officer and the other members of the companynting staff started showing the partial attitude towards the petitioner as the result of all the Assembly Constituencies in the Himachal Pradesh had been declared and trend of the voting and results at the national level for the Parliamentary Constituencies had also started becoming available, further the result of this Assembly Constituency would have affected the formation of the State Government.
Further the votes polled which were required to be rejected were companynted in favour of the respondent No.
A,S. ANAND, C.J., Aggrieved by the dismissal of an election petition challenging the election of respondent No.
