Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 718
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Ajit Singh, Appellant
Versus
Bansi Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 702 of 1993
Decided on 12-7-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate with him for Appellant; Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mahabir Singh and Mr. S.R. Sharma Advocates with him, for Respondents.
improper counting of ballot papers - Irregularities in counting of votes - postal ballot votes — enlargement of time - allegation that relations of candidate were engaged in counting of votes - counting agents alleged to have no access to counting tables to see counting
D.V.Sehgal, K.Madhava Reddy, Mahabir Singh, Naresh Bakshi, S.R.Sharma
Headnote:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 81 - Rule 53 of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Appointment to assist - Election - Court of Punjab and Haryana Election Petition aforesaid Election Petition was preferred by appellant Representation People hereinafter referred to as Representation Act inter alia praying that election of returned candidate respondent should be declared void and petitioner having secured next highest score should be declared as returned from Constituency in State of Haryana in Election of Haryana following schedule was set by Election Commission account of unfortunate assassination Gandhi counting was postponed polling had however been schedule- It appears that initially persons filed their nomination papers but persons had drawn and election petitioner other candidates contested said election from Constituency respondent having secured highest votes as a Congress candidate was declared elected from said constituency –Held, Government College- He was initially appointed as a lecturer ad hoc basis but became permanent had been holding office in Government College since 1984 and on one occasion he was transferred to another Government College but later on came back to Government college which he was posted earlier Judge in our view has rightly that there was no evidence worthy of credence to hold was either appointed or posted at Government College at instance or with - In our view learned Judge is justified in holding that when complaints about irregularity committed in respect of a table was made Returning Officer has jurisdiction to place responsible professor of a Government College at that table- Court therefore find no substance in contention raised about engagement of relation duties of counting ballot papers appellant that objections raised by election petitioner and his agents and also had not been considered by Returning Officer properly and gross irregularity in counting of ballot papers of returned candidate was allowed by inaction of Returning Officer- In our view there is no substance in such contention- Returning Officer has taken appropriate steps in changing and rectifying mistake committed by him in counting ballot papers- As indicated earlier after each round of counting certificate of satisfaction about proper counting by candidates or their election agents had been obtained by Returning Officer- There is no convincing and unimpeachable evidence about irregularities in counting of votes materially affecting election result- In aforesaid circumstances there was no occasion to set aside election result- Court therefore find no merit in this appeal and same is dismissed without however any order as to cost - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
G.N. RAY, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 15, 1992 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Petition No. 15 of 1991. The aforesaid Election Petition was preferred by the appellant Shri Ajit Singh under Section 81, of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Representation Act) inter alia praying that the election of the returned candidate Shri Bansi Singh, respondent No 1, should be declared void and the petitioner having secured the next highest score should be declared as returned from Ateli Constituency No.89 in the State of Haryana in the Vidhan Sabha Election held in 1991. For the election of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha for the year 1991, the following schedule was set up by the Election Commission :-
1) Last date for filing nomination papers 26-4-91
2) Scrutiny of papers 27-4-91
3) Withdrawal of nomination papers 29-4-91
4) Date of polling 20-5-91
5) Date of counting of votes 26-5-91
2. On account of unfortunate assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, the date of counting was postponed to June 16, 1991. The polling had however been held on 20th May as per the schedule. It appears that initially 46 persons filed their nomination papers but 24 persons had drawn and the election petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh, and 20 other candidates contested the said election from Ateli Constituency No.89. The respondent No. 1, Shri Bansi Singh, having secured the highest votes as a Congress-1 candidate was declared elected from the said constituency.
3. The validity of election was challenged by the election petitioner on the ground of various irregularities committed in counting the ballot papers. Such irregularities may be stated as hereunder :
a) the counting place was surrounded by high fence and the counting agents were made to sit beyond that fence. Such agents had therefore no access to the counting tables and they could not watch the counting from distance.
b) five persons, named by the election petitioners were stated to be relations or proteges of Shri Bansi Singh who was declared elected, but such persons were deputed as counting Assistants. Although objection was raised about their presence, only one of them, namely, Gianinder Singh was removed from Table No. 3 and sent to the reserve staff.
c) Shri Manoj Kumar who was the counting Supervisor of Table No. 3 was a close relation of respondent No. 1 and despite the said fact being pointed out by the election petitioner no step was taken against such irregularity.
d) On the complaint of Shri N.S. Jadav election agent a random check was held in respect of Booth No. 33 and it was found that the respondent No. 1 had been given the benefit of nine votes although on rechecking it was found that three votes had been cast in favour of the election petitioner and six of such ballot papers were blank. Six such ballot papers were ultimately rejected and the three polled in favour of the petitioner were added in this counting. Similarly, one ballot paper was found in the packet relating to Booth No. 18. On detection, the said blank ballot paper was rejected.
e) Improper acceptance of postal ballots (110 number) after the date of polling.
f) The counting assistants and supervisors rejected the ballot papers on their own without taking any decision from the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer has also no opportunity to apply his mind and no reasons were recorded for the rejection of the ballot papers.
g) The counting agent of the petitioner and that of Nihal Singh another candidate had objected to the bungling of table No. 9 and Nihal Singh also made a complaint and though a request was made for recounting, such request was not adhered to.
h) That in large number of polling booths the column of Form 16 with respect to doubtful ballot papers was kept blank with an obvious intention to manipulate the result in favour of the returned candidate.
i) The instruction of the election petitioner for checking the hi
