Back
1992 Supreme(P&H) 372
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.L.Bahri, J.
Ram Sarup
Versus
Peer Chand
Election Petition No. 7 of 1991,
Decided On : MARCH 18, 1992
An election petition must contain material facts to support allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting. Vague allegations do not constitute a cause of action.
Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - CAUSE OF ACTION - GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 100(1)(D)(III) AND (IV) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT - MATERIAL FACTS - RECOUNT OF BALLOT PAPERS - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - VAGUE ALLEGATIONS - DISMISSAL OF PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition challenging the election of Peer Chand (Respondent No. 1) to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Ratia constituency in May 1991. The petitioner, Ram Sarup, alleged improper reception, refusal, or rejection of votes, non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, and rules and orders made under the Act, materially affecting the result of the election.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action. The allegations made in the petition were vague and did not constitute a cause of action. The petitioner failed to provide material facts to support the allegations of improper counting, non-compliance with rules and instructions, and seating arrangements that prevented proper observation of the counting process.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An election petition must contain an adequate statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies to support the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting. (Ram Sewak v. Hussain Kamil, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari) 2. A bald assertion of dissatisfaction with the counting process is not tantamount to a statement of grounds within the contemplation of Rule 63(2) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1961. (Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Beharilal Khachi) 3. A recount of ballot papers may be ordered only if the election petition contains an adequate statement of material facts, the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are prima facie established, and the court is prima facie satisfied that such an order is necessary to decide the dispute and do complete justice. (Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai) 4. Vague allegations of interchange of votes, mixing of votes, improper rejection and reception of votes, and non-compliance with rules and instructions do not constitute a cause of action for an election petition. (Ram Singh v. Kazi Mohiuddin)
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2000.00.
A.L.BAHRI, J.
1. Elections to Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Ratia constituency was held in May 1991. Peer Chand, respondent No. 1, a candidate belonging to Haryana Vikas Party, was declared elected having secured 13255 votes. Rival candidate Ram Sarup petitioner secured 11988 votes. In this petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act) Ram Sarup petitioner, the defeated candidate, has challenged election of Peer Chand respondent No. 1. Mainly the grounds taken up in the petition are covered by Sec. 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. With respect to ground No. (III) it is particularly asserted that at the time of counting at different tables at different rounds of counting certain number of votes belonging to the petitioner and other candidates were wrongfully put in the bundle of respondent No. 1 and if on recount such number of votes are taken out of the bundle of respondent No. 1, he would stand defeated. With respect to ground No. (iv) it is alleged that the seating arrangement at the time of counting of the ballot papers was such that it was not possible for the counting agents to see, much less properly see, the ballot papers in the process of counting. A barbed wire was put in between tables of the counting officers and counting agents of the candidates who were also made to sit at a sufficient distance from where they could not properly see the ballot papers. The counting staff appointed was openly siding with respondent No. 1. Counting agents of the petitioner were turned out. Door Darshan and All India Radio earlier announced election of the petitioner. However, subsequently respondent No. 1 was announced to have been elected.
2. Election petition has been contested by respondent No. 1 by filing written statement. All the assertions of the petitioner have been denied. It is pleaded that the election did not disclose material facts constituting cause of action and thus the same could not be put to trial.
3. On the pleadings, issues were framed on 14/02/1992. Counsel for both the parties stated that issue No. 1 be treated as preliminary as no evidence was required to be led on this issue. It was so ordered. Issue No. 1 reads as under :-
"1) Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action ? Opp."
4 The relevant clauses for decision of the present case are (iii) and (iv) of sub-clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 100 of the Act which are reproduced as under :-
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.- (1) Subject to provisions of Sub-Section (2) if the High Court is of opinion :-
(a) to (c).............................. (d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected : (i) to (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."
5 In order to determine whether election petition discloses any cause of action, it is necessary to read the election petition as a whole. It is in that context that reference is being made in detail to the assertions made in the petition, with respect to grounds which are covered by sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 100 of the Act as reproduced above. Paras 4 to 6 of the petition refer to the arrangement of tables in the counting hall as well as to the seating arrangement. In all 12 tables for counting of votes were there and ballot papers of 135 polling booths were to be counted. There was a barbed wire put around the counting table all around. At a distance of 5-6 feet the counting agents were to be seated. This arrangement was not in accordance with the
