Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.M. Sahai, J.N. Dubey, H.N. Seth, JJ.
Ram Adhar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The District Judge and Others – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 11079 of 1983
Decided On : 14-03-1985
ELECTION - U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT - SECTION 12-C - INSPECTION OF BALLOT PAPERS - CONDITIONS - ELECTION PETITION - CONTENTS - SUMMARY OF CIRCUMSTANCES - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY - DISCRETION - SECRECY OF BALLOT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh challenged the election of Bechu Ram as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Sakia, alleging improper counting of votes. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) allowed the election petition and declared Ram Adhar Singh as the duly elected Pradhan after recounting votes. On revision, the District Judge set aside the SDO's order, holding that the SDO had no jurisdiction to direct the recount. Ram Adhar Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the SDO had no jurisdiction to direct the recount of votes because the election petition did not contain a summary of circumstances to justify the election being questioned on the ground of wrong counting of votes, as required by Rule 24 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The Court also held that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act, regarding the circumstances in which ballot papers can be inspected, apply equally to election petitions dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the SDO had jurisdiction to direct the recount of votes in the absence of a summary of circumstances justifying the election being questioned on the ground of wrong counting of votes in the election petition? 2. Whether the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act, regarding the circumstances in which ballot papers can be inspected, apply equally to election petitions dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the SDO had no jurisdiction to direct the recount of votes because the election petition did not contain a summary of circumstances to justify the election being questioned on the ground of wrong counting of votes, as required by Rule 24 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. The Court reasoned that the requirement of a summary of circumstances is necessary to ensure that the court or authority dealing with an election petition does not countenance or proceed to investigate into any ground taken in the election petition unless the ground as well as the material in support of such ground have been adequately disclosed in the petition. 2. The Court held that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act, regarding the circumstances in which ballot papers can be inspected, apply equally to election petitions dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the requirement of a summary of circumstances in the election petition is the same under both enactments, namely, to ensure that the court or authority does not permit inspection of ballot papers unless the foundation for the purpose has been properly laid in the petition by specifying the ground and the material or the circumstances in support of such ground.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the SDO had no jurisdiction to direct the recount of votes and that the District Judge was correct in setting aside the SDO's order.
H.N. Seth, J.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh questions the validity of the order/judgment of the District Judge Ghazipur dated 5-9-1983 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby he allowed the revision application filed by Bechu Ram (Respondent No. 21 and directed that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghazipur, dated 30-4-1983 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) be set aside.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 11-4-1982 Bechu Ram, Respondent No. 2, was declared elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Sakia, District Ghazipur. Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh, one of the candidates, who contested the said election, filed an election petition u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 15-4-1982 and questioned the election of Bechu Ram inter-alia on the ground that there had been improper counting of votes and claimed that after correctly counting the votes be should be declared to have been duly elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Bechu Ram contested the petition and filed a written statement (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) refuting various allegations made in i he election petition and asserting that the counting of votes had been done in the presence of Petitioner and his election agent strictly in accordance with the rules. On 29-4-1982 the Petitioner made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer Ghazipur end prayed that in the interest of justice all papers including the sealed ballot papers in connection with the said election be summoned and after inspecting the same a memorandum be prepared. The Sub-Divisional Officer made an order dated 11-5-1982 summoning the documents mentioned in the aforesaid application. Bechu Ram then filed an application on 22-5-1982 objecting to the summoning of the election record and prayed that the order dated 11-5-1982 be recalled. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 27-5-1982, rejected the prayer made by Bechu Ram and thereafter fixed 2-8-1982 as the date for recounting of votes. The votes were accordingly recounted on 2-8-1982 in the presence of counsel for the parties and a memorandum with regard to valid and invalid votes was prepared which showed that whereas Bechu Ram election symbol-pen and inkpot) had secured only 331 valid votes as against 380 votes shown by the election officer and that Ram Adhar Singh (election symbol-tractor) had secured the highest number of valid votes, i.e. 366 as against 363 votes shown by the Election Officer It was only after the votes had been recounted as aforesaid that the parties subsequently led oral evidence in the case on 22-9-1982.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer relying upon the memorandum prepared by him, after inspection and recounting of votes on 22-8-19882, held that the Returning Officer had not counted the votes correctly and that Ram Adhar Singh, who had pelled the highest number of votes, was entitled to the declaration that he had been elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha It was contended before the Sub-Divisional Officer that before 2-8-1982 there was absolutely no material before him which could justify a direction for inspection of the ballot papers and recounting of votes and as such he should not in deciding the election petition, take the memorandum prepared by him on that date into consideration In this connection the Sub-Divisional Officer noticed the observations made in the cases of Kali Prasad v. Prescribed Authority (SDO) Pratapgarh 1980 ALJ 378, The Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Indore Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd., Birlagram, Nagda, (1975) 2 SCC 721, and Parashu Ram Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Ballia. 1980 AWC 137 and observed that he had, in the light of aforementioned decisions, ample jurisdiction to direct recounting of votes as he was satisfied in this regard on the basis of the pleadings contained in the election petition. We, however, repell
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
