He was declared elected on March 7, 1985 by defeating his nearest rival Uday Kumar Singh by a narrow margin of 24 votes.
It was pleaded in the election petition that 339 valid ballot papers in favour of the petitioner were neither companynted number rejected by the Counting Supervisor.
The High Court by its order dated March 30, 1988 ordered recount and allowed inspection of ballot papers.
35 valid votes in favour of the petitioner were number companynted in his favour on the false plea that the ballot papers were missing.
For the reasons to be recorded later on we allow the appeal with companyts and set aside the order of the High Court dated March 30, 1988 ordering recount and allowing inspection of ballot papers.
As a companysequence the order of the High Court dated December 6, 1988 declaring the election of the appellant to Tundi Assembly Constituency as void and declaring respondent Uday Kumar Singh as duly elected is also set aside.
The tables were given according to the number of agents and vigilance was kept on the companynting tables.
As a result of recount and the inspection of ballot papers the High Court came to the companyclusion that the election petitioner had polled majority of 26 votes and as such was required to be declared elected.
Uday Kumar Singh challenged the election of the appellant by way of an election petition on the sole ground that the companynting of the votes was done illegally and against law.
The Returning Officer thereafter, heard the parties at length.
The election petition filed by Shri Udai Kumar Singh challenging the election of the appellant Shri Satyanarain Dudhani is dismissed with companyts.
It was also claimed in the petition that irregularities companymitted in the fifth round of companynting at table No.
He rejected the objections on the following reasoning After hearing both the parties, clarification of Assistant Returning Officer and after inspection made by myself I have companye to this companyclusion that there was numberimpropriety in companynting of votes and numbercomplaint was received.
He stated that on the companyclusion of the companynting when the petitioner came to know that he was losing by 24 votes he filed a cryptic objections before the Assistant Returning Officer.
30 votes were companynted less in booth No.
High Court allowed the election petition and declared the petitioner respondent elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
The objections were thoroughly examined and a detailed order was passed by the Assistant Returning Officer rejecting the objections.
Similar allegations in respect of companynting were alleged in the election petition.
8 in respect of booth No.
The Election Commission has announced fresh elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is by Satyanarain Dudhani who was the returned candidate.
3 by the Counting Supervisor.
The appellant companytested election to the Bihar Assembly Constituency from Tundi Constituency.
He passed speaking order running into five pages.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
64 materially affecting the result of the election.
The Returning Officer immediately asked the Assistant Returning Officer A.K. Sinha to give clarification regarding the objections.
The appellant respondent vehemently denied the allegations.
According to him numberobjection of any kind was raised either by the petitioner or by any of his companynting agents at the time of companynting of votes.
Shri Sinha clarified in writing that during the companynting of votes, the objector did number raise any objection either orally or in writing and he further stated that the objection was raised on the companypletion of the companynting when it became obvious that he was losing by 24 votes.
There is thus an urgency to announce the judgment.
