Judgement

ANAND, J. :- Thre appellant through this appeal under S.116A of the Representation of the people Act,1951 (hereinafter the Act) has challenged the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing his Election Petition No.16 / 91.

2. The elections to the Haryana Legislative Assembly were held along with the elections to the Parliament in respect of the seats falling within the State of Haryana on 20-5-1991. The appellant and respondents Nos.1 to 16 were the candidates from 71 Narnaund Assembly Constituency. Respondent No.1, a candidate sponsored by the Janata Dal was declared elected by polling 20011 votes. The appellant, a nominee of the Indian National Congress secured 19973 votes i.e. 38 less votes than the returned candidate. Since the real contest was between the appellant and the returned candidate respondent No.1, and the challenge in the Election Petition is also limited, it is not necessary to notice the votes polled by or the party affiliations of the other respondents. The polling in the constituency took place in 132 polling stations. The counting of ballot papers took place in the town of Hansi in PCSD High School Dr. Avtar Singh, IAS,SDM Hansi was the Returning Officer, who declared respondent No.1 as duly elected.

3. The appellant filed an election petition under S.81 / 83 of the Act calling in question the election of respondent No.1. The challenge, in the election petition, was based mainly on the ground of commission of irregularities and illegalities during the counting . The appellant alleged that the Returning Officer was biased in favour of respondent No.1 and that he had appointed various members of the counting staff of the choice of respondent No.1 and those members improperly rejected the valid votes of the appellant and illegally inflated the number of votes polled by respondent No.1 by accepting and counting invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1. The facts and particulars in this behalf are mainly contained in paras 11 to 24 of the election petition.

4. Referring to the manner of counting the appellant complained that the manner of the fixing of tables for counting and the fixing of a barbed wire to keep the counting agents of the candidates outside that barbed wire, resulted in the non participation of the candidates and their counting agents in the countings process and was contrary to the guidelines contained in the Handbook for Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India. It was alleged that 20 tables had been placed for being used for the purposes of counting in a small hall and that led to a lot of congestion and in spite of the protests of the appellant and other candidates the counting continued in the same fashion and therefore it was not possible for the counting agents appointed by the candidates including his counting agents, to properly watch the process of counting of votes and it also disabled them to raise objections or even note down the particulars of the votes improperly received in favour of the returned candidate as also the votes improperly rejected in so far as the appellant is concerned. That even at the dias of the Returning Officer, the candidates and their election agents could not see the proceeding being carried out by the officer sitting on the dias. With reference to Form XVI in respect of certain booths, it was alleged that there had been erasures, cuttings, over-writings and tampering with the figures of various votes polled by different candidates and also in respect of the rejected ballot papers and those cuttings had not been certified by any officer or the Returning Officer. It was asserted that the Returning Officer did not announce the number of votes polled by each of the candidates as incorporated in Form XX. It was further alleged that after declaring the result and preparing Form XX (Ex.P.405), the Returning Officer had ordered another Form XX to be prepared in violation of Rules and Orders with a view to help the returned