ORDER:- This election petition has been filed by Ram Harsh Misra to challenge the election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from Constituency No. 148 known as Mahsi Constituency District Bahraich that was held on 26-2-1974. This election was contested by the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 9. The respondent No.1 Sukhadraj Singh having secured the largest number of votes i.e.. 16486 was declared elected. The petitioner lagged behind him by 33 votes having secured 16453 valid votes.

2. The election has been challenged mainly on the around that the courting of votes was not done properly. It was alleged that the size of the counting tables was small and when ten counting agents one of each candidate and three members of the courting staff sat around it there was great overcrowding. It was not possible for the counting agents to watch the ballot papers closely and see if they were being properly sorted out and kept correctly in the trays meant for each candidate. The counting was also done hurriedly. The counting was done in five rounds. The total number of rejected ballot papers was 2039 and the rejection was also done in a mechanical manner. The counting of first and second rounds had been completed at about 4.30 P. M. and 7 P. M. respectively and thereafter the third round of counting was completed at about 11 P. M. The fourth and fifth rounds were taken together and their counting was completed at about 5 A. M. When the second round of counting was about to close, the light was fading and there was inadequate lighting arrangement. The counting continued in that fading light also in spite of protest being made that in that light even the marks of seal on the ballot papers were not distinctly visible and as such counting should be postponed, But the Returning Officer did not pay any heed to this protest. The respondent No. 1 himself had moved an application complaining about fading light but even then no action was taken by the Returning Officer. This gave an opportunity to the counting staff to bundle out and count the ballot papers in their own manner recklessly, negligently and carelessly. When in that fading light the petitioners agent asked a number of times to show him a particular ballot paper, the counting staff did not agree but asked him to go to the Returning Officer who in his turn said that the counting was being done by the counting staff and not by him and it was not possible for him to go and supervise the counting being done at all the fourteen tables every time. In spite of these heavy odds, the Petitioner was leading all other candidates including he respondent No. 1 in the first three rounds and he was fully convinced of the fact that had the counting taken place in the proper manner in accordance with the rules after giving due opportunity to his agents his lead in those three would have been by more 100 votes than what was actually counted by the counting staff. The petitioner further alleged that the counting staff which had mostly been drawn from the consolidation department attached to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was favourably inclined towards the Jan Sang candidate the respondent No. 1. In the fourth round the petitioners lead was reduced while in the fifth round the petitioner was made to lose. It was further alleged that on table No. 11 the number of ballot papers counted in favour of the petitioner as valid votes was 262 but that was entered as 162 in the result sheet which was however detected by the petitioners counting agent immediately and on his protest that this had been done deliberately, it was corrected. This fact would be evident from a perusal of Form No. 20. The petitioner who had after the counting had started, gone back to his house as he was not keeping fit, received a message sent by his agents that serious irregularities were being committed and efforts were being made by the counting staff to bring about his defeat and to bring about the success of respondent No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document