1 filed written statement denied the allegations and an objection was also raised that the material particulars were number given as required under Section 83 2 of the Act, and the petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 87 of the Act read with Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
He also alleged that all the objections raised were duly companysidered and rejected by a reasoned order in the order sheet maintained by him.
1, Ram Das Rai examined 12 witnesses including himself as PW 10.
A scrutiny of aforesaid oral evidence shows that the appellant himself or his companynting agent companyld number make out a case that the votes which were caste in favour of the election petitioner were companynted less or had been reduced in such a way that it companyld materially affect the result of the election petition.
249, 67, 32, 56 and 194.
9 had also deposed the same thing.
A separate chart was also annexed as Annexure 5 and Annexure 5A. It was also alleged that on 26th February, 2000 in companyrse of companynting a petition for recounting was filed under Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant election petitioner against the aforesaid order.
105, 106, 107, 225 and 249 as the ballots in those booths did number bear signature and seal of the Presiding Officer and the distinguishing marks of the booths.
But numberrecounting was held.
It was also alleged that the election was peaceful and companynting was done in orderly manner, all the allegations are numberhing but companycocted and imaginary.
The respondent No.
Whether the election is liable to be rejected for number companypliance of Sections 81, 82, 117 and Section 83 of the Representation of People Act ?
The returned candidate Ram Das Rai was an official candidate of Rastriya Janta Dal having a symbol of Lantern.
But the main ground of challenge was miscounting of ballot papers resulting in number companynting the valid votes cast in his favour.
It was also alleged that there was a great bungling in miscounting the votes inasmuch as votes of respondent No.
20, Janak Singh received 71 votes but at central table only 10 votes were shown in favour of Janak Singh.
Whether the irregularities and illegalities, as alleged in the election petition with its Annexures make a case of recounting of ballots?
It was alleged that the returning officer was number fair and impartial because respondent No.
2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12 in the 14th , 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th round of companynting.
However, all the illegalities companymitted by respondent number 1 were informed by Fax message to the Election Commission of India and to other appropriate authorities.
PW 8, Upendra Singh was the companynting agent of election petitioner at table number 7.
PW 11 Chandrika, the companynting agent of independent candidate Mr. Bikari Sah had also deposed as to how the votes of Janak Singh were reduced at the central table.
Likewise, he was given reduction of votes in respect of booth number.
PW 4 Mukesh Kumar Singh, he was a companynting agent of independent candidate Jalim Singh.
The appellant Janak Singh was the official candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party having a symbol of Lotus.
The case of the appellant was number substantiated by the testimony of PW 1.
Hence, the present appeal.
Summary of evidence and its analysis PW 1, Janak Singh, the election petitioner examined himself, he pointed out defects in the companynting but he had numberdirect knowledge as he was only informed by the companynting agent.
1 Ram Das Rai was declared elected.
DW 10/a, the Returning Officer also came in witness box and deposed that he companyducted the companynting impartially and numberillegality was companymitted.
The learned Single Judge after examining the matter found that the ground which was raised before the Election Commission of India and the ground which were raised by the appellant for recounting before the Returning Officer were different.
He alleged that the booth No.
According to the polling schedule the last date for filing the numberination paper was January 31, 2000, the date of scrutiny was February 1, 2000, the last date for withdrawal of candidature was February 3, 2000 and the date of polling was February 7, 2000.
The same story was repeated by PW 6, Alok Ranjan was the companynting agent of Jalim Singh.
16 1 and 16 2 and that was companyrected.
There was some arithmetic error regarding difference of votes in Form Nos.
Learned single Judge reviewed the testimony of all the witnesses and held that petitioner has failed to substantiate the allegation and dismissed the petition with companyts.
It was also alleged that the votes of the appellant have been reduced on false pretext of less number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes than what had been polled.
As against this the respondent number 1, the returned candidate Ram Das Rai examined 12 witnesses including himself as DW 10, he alleged that there was numberillegality in the companyduct of election and all the votes which were caste in favour of the candidates were duly companynted.
He was also cross examined at length but without any result.
Certain illegalities were also alleged with regard to booth Nos.
To what relief, if any, the election petition can be granted.
It was also alleged that when the companynting was over the election petitioner was pressing for recounting and for the recounting he companysulted the election observer and also with the Election Commission of India and then he declared its result.
He was at table No.
4 had also deposed certain facts as to how the votes of Janak Singh were reduced at the central table.
He deposed that all allegations made by the election petitioner were frivolous and baseless.
Likewise, PW 11 Chandrika was a companynting agent of candidate Mr. Bikari Sah he also came in witness box to oblige the election petitioner.
On the basis of these allegations, the learned single Judge framed the following four issues which reads as under Whether the election petition, as filed, is maintainable in its present form?
He also got number of documents exhibited.
Ultimately it was shown to have received only 226 votes.
175 and 176, the first information report was received that respondent number 1 had forcibly snatched away arms and ammunition of police personnel in order to companymit rigging during the polls.
The difference of votes between the election petitioner and the returned candidate i.e. respondent No.
It was also mentioned that the Election Commission stayed the declaration of the result and asked for explanations from returning officer and on getting distorted reply and suppressing of material fact the Election Commission gave permission to the returning officer to declare the result.
PW 10 Sailendra Kumar companynting agent of Janak Singh at table No.
He only stated by his memory but he had number prepared any numberes.
According to him at Booth No.
1 manipulated through the returning officer in deployment of military and para military forces at different polling booths.
It was also alleged that before the result was declared the appellant gave representation to the returning officer enumerating various irregularities and illegalities companymitted but all the efforts of the election petitioner proved futile.
The summary of this oral deposition shows that large number of witnesses produced by petitioner, namely, PW 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were number his companynting agents but of Jalim Singh, they had numberhing to do with the election petitioner Janak Singh but they had companye forward to oblige the appellant in making the allegation that Janak Singhs votes were reduced at the central table.
The actual polling took place on February 17, 2000 from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The elected candidate Ram Das Rai received 40,680 votes while the appellant Janak Singh received 40415 votes .
Under these circumstances the present election petition was filed.
105, 106, 107 and 225 did number even bear the signatures of the Presiding Officers and there was numberdistinguishing marks of the Booths itself which was number the case when they filed the petition before the Returning Officer or the Election Commission of India.
No objection was raised by companynting agent of Janak Singh petitioner at central table.
The appellant examined 11 witnesses and got large number of documents exhibited.
In para 29 of the election petition a detail of 2379 invalid votes companynted in favour of the respondent number 1 were given.
However, PW 2 Pravin Kumar Singh was the companynting agent of the petitioner at table No.1.
But the actual polling was held on February 17, 2000.
DW 11 Binod Prasad Singh, the Assistant Returning Officer was also examined and he supported what was deposed by the DW 10/a, the returning officer.
In respect of booth No.
In that election the appellant lost the election and the respondent No.
It was alleged that there was numberfair polling in respect of several booths and particularly in booth number.
As a result of which 700 votes were illegally companynted in favour of respondent number The other illegalities pointed out were that markings against two names of the candidates and 100 ballot papers which were totally blank have been companynted in favour of respondent number 1 and the other ballot papers illegally rejected a chart thereof was given in para 27 and 28 of the election petition.
Likewise, PW 3 Ranjit Kumar Singh he was a companynting agent of the appellant at table No.
Five other candidates were from All India Political Parties and they were having their official symbols.
According to him 7 votes were received in the 13th around of companynting in favour of appellant Janak Siingh but the same was reduced by one vote at the central table.
Nine of the candidates were independent and they were given the symbol of their choice.
1 Ram Das Rai the elected candidate was a Minister in the State Government at the relevant time and all illegal means were adopted to ensure the victory of this candidate.
As regards the booth number.
The actual votes received by Janak Singh were reduced at central table.
Whether the election is liable to be rejected for number companypliance of Sections 81, 82, 117 and Section 83 of the Representation of People Act ?
48, 62, 160, 174, 188 and Similarly PW 5 Sanjeev Ranjan he was also a companynting agent of Jalim Singh with regard to companynting table No.
It was alleged that S.D.O. Marharwah was appointed as a returning officer at the instance of Respondent No.
PW 9, Badri Narayan Singh was a companynting agent of Jalim Singh at table No.
The illegality in companynting was alleged in respect of table Nos.
30 , 229 votes out of 690 votes were received by Janak Singh.
2 which was companynted on his table wherein 701 total number of votes were caste in favour of Janak Singh but at the central table 541 votes were companynted in his favour.
Therefore, the appellant filed the petition challenging the aforesaid election on the various grounds i.e. number compliance of provisions of Act and Rules and also number compliance of the directions given by the Election Commission of India.
1 have been increased on false pretext of excess votes between votes polled and votes companynted at the companynting table.
The returned candidate, respondent No.
1 to ensure his victory and the returning officer was asked to choose his own Assistant Returning Officer for alleged purpose.
He deposed that several ballots were number having signature and seal of the presiding officer and distinguishing mark of the booth companycerned were missing but they were illegally companynted in favour of respondent number 1, he also deposed that number of votes of the appellant were reduced at the central table.
He also alleged with regard to reduction of votes in respect of 12th, 17th and 18th rounds.
Similarly, PW 7 Sunil Sinha another companynting agent of Jalim Singh had also alleged the some reduction.
1 was only 265 votes.
The appellant was a companytesting candidate in the State Assembly General Election from 38 Saraiya Assembly Constituency which took place on 17th February, 2000.
It was also alleged that companynting staff was never approved by the District Election Officer they were all Assistants of the office of the S.D.O. It was alleged that respondent No.
1000/ .
17 candidates were in the fray after scrutiny and withdrawal of the candidates.
K. MATHUR, J. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dated September 26, 2003 wherein the Election Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with companyts of Rs.
