Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.N.P.Singh JJ.
Maksundan Ram
Versus
Kamla Prasad
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 28 of 1966 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 22, 1966
GRAM PANCHAYAT ELECTION - INSPECTION AND RECOUNTING OF BALLOT PAPERS - POWER OF ELECTION TRIBUNAL - BIHAR PANCHAYAT ELECTIONS RULES, 1959 - RULES 75, 82, 86, 87 - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 83, 90, 92, 100(1)(D)(III) - CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961 - RULES 56, 58, 63.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected as Mukhiya of Jawanganj Gram Panchayat, challenged the order of the Election Tribunal allowing the recounting of ballot papers in an election petition filed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the Election Tribunal had no power to order inspection or recounting of ballot papers, and even if it had such power, it was arbitrarily exercised.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Election Tribunal had no power to order inspection or recounting of ballot papers under the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959. The court found that the Rules did not contain any specific provision granting such power to the Tribunal, and that the general provisions relied upon by the respondents were not sufficient to confer such power.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Tribunal had the power to order inspection or recounting of ballot papers under the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959? 2. Whether the power, if any, was arbitrarily exercised in the instant case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959, and found that there was no specific provision granting the Election Tribunal the power to order inspection or recounting of ballot papers. 2. The court also found that the general provisions relied upon by the respondents, namely, Rules 82 and 87, were not sufficient to confer such power on the Tribunal. 3. The court further held that even if the Tribunal had such power, it was arbitrarily exercised in the instant case, as the petitioner's allegations in the election petition were too vague to indicate any specific materials in support of them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the order of the Election Tribunal ordering the recounting of votes or ballot papers.
Untwalia, J.
1. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court on his application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents to show cause why the orders dated 15-11-65 and 21-12-65 of the Election Tribunal ordering the recounting of the ballot papers in respect of the election of the Mukhiya of Jawanganj Gram Panchayat in the district of Gaya be not called up and quashed. Cause has been shown by Mr. Raghunath Jha on behalf of respondent No. 1--the petitioner who filed the election petition and at whose instance the impugned orders have been made--and by the teamed Additional Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Bihar
2. The petitioners case in short is that he was elected Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat aforesaid in the election held on the 21st of May, 1965. The first respondent, by an application filed under the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959. hereinafter called the Rules, challenged the election of the petitioner and claimed a further relief that It should be declared that the respondent No. 5 was the duly elected Mukhiya. In the election petition, a copy of which is annexure A to the writ application, amongst others, the grounds stated in the following paragraphs are these-
"18. That a large number of votes fit to be rejected under G.P Election Rules were wrongly counted in favour of Shri Maksudan Ram the respondent No. 1 by the presiding officers of ah the booths.
19. The several rotes cast in favour of UK respondent No. 5 were wrongly rejected at the time of counting by the Presiding Officers at Jawangunj and other booths A proper scrutiny of the ballot papers would show that the voters had clearly indicated their intention in favour of the respondent No. 5.
20. That a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot papers was not given to the polling agents before rejecting the same.
21. That a prayer was made on behalf of the polling agents for recount of ballot papers but the presiding officer declined to do so.
22. That a proper scrutiny and recount of the ballot papers said to have been polled in favour of the respondent No. 1 Shri Maksudan Ram and the rejected ballot paper is necessary in the ends of justice."
3. The petitioners case is that when the counting was done by the Presiding Officer on the day when the election was held, polling agents of all the contesting candidates were present including the agent of respondent No 5, for whose benefit respondent No. 1 seems to have filed the application, and this would appear from the chart (annexure A to the writ application).
4. The sole Member of the Election Tribunal. Mr. S. A. Hassan, made an order on 15-11-65 in these terms
"..The prayer for the counting of ballot papers is allowed."
The petitioner filed an application on 6-12-65 praying to the Election Tribunal to recall the order dated 15-11-1965. No reasons were given for ordering recounting on 16-11-65. But, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for recalling that order, reasons were given in support of the order made for recounting, and those reasons are contained in the order dated 21-12-65. And that is why both the orders have got to be read together and have been challenged in this application In the latter order the Tribunal has said
"On the perusal of the election petition it would appear that the petitioner has alleged specific instances that votes that were counted for respondent No. 1 should have been counted for respondent No. 5 and that votes cancelled were polled in favour of respondent No. 5 and so on. It also appears that the difference in the margin of votes was only nine (9). and the main allegation of the petitioner is about improper counting of ballot papers in favour of respondent No. 5. That being so, I do not see why the prayer of the petitioner for recounting of ballot papers before the recording of evidence should not be granted."
The petitioner was respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 was also respondent No. 5 ther
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
