IMPORTANT POINT
Election results can only be annulled based on substantiated evidence of irregularities, and procedural compliance is essential in election petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 10 and Sri Sudeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 to 16.

2. By means of the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment and order date 27.2.2024 passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh in Election Petition No. 01 of 2021 filed under Section 27(2) Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961.

3. The opposite party No. 1 had filed the aforesaid election petition inter alia stating that he was a candidate in the election held for the post of member of Zila Panchayat, Kshetra Mangraura III, Ward No. 11, Development Block Mangraura, Pargaana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and he was allotted Polling symbol Axe. The opposite parties No. 1 to 17 in the election petition i.e. the petitioner and opposite parties No. 2 to 17 in this writ petition, were also candidates in the election. It was alleged in the election petition that serious irregularities were committed in preparation of the voters list.

4. In para 5 of the election petition it was pleased that a total of 27,928 ballots had been casted and 1933 ballets had been cancelled whereas a total of 27,160 ballets had been counted, out of which 1328 had been cancelled, whereas in para 7 of the election petition it was pleaded that a total of 27,160 ballets had been casted whereas 27,928 ballets had been counted and thus 768 ballets were counted in excess. The opposite party No. 1 had contended that 3896 votes were casted in his favour and 833 votes casted in his favour were cancelled and the returned candidate (the writ petitioner) got 3818 votes. The opposite party No. 1 claimed that he had won by 78 votes and the opposite parties No. 18 to 20 to the election petition - the Assistant Returning Officer, Returning Officer and District Election Officer, had made an announcement to this effect at the polling center, but a certificate to this affect was not given to him and it was told that the same will be provided at the district headquarter on the following day. When the election petitioner reached the district headquarter on the following day, the writ petitioner was declared successful by committing serious irregularities in counting of ballet papers, whereby 833 votes casted in favour of the election petitioner were cancelled and 768 excess votes were counted, which affected the result of the election.

5. In para 10 of the election petition seven grounds were taken by the election petitioner for assailing validity of the election which are as follows :

(i) The counting was not done in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 and the relavant rules and the counting sheet was prepared illegally and it is erroneous, ambiguous and misleading.

(ii) The counting was not done in an independent, unbiased and legal manner.

(iii) A total of 27,160 votes had been casted and 768 votes have been counted in excess of the votes casted. The election petitioner was told that his 3896 votes were valid and 833 votes were cancelled. He had been told that the returned candidate had got 3818 votes and thus he had won by 78 votes and the opposite parties 18 to 20 had made a declaration to this effect. However, it was told that the winning certificate will be given at the District Headquarter on the following day. Subsequently in absence of the election petitioner, his 833 valid votes were cancelled, his 78 votes were added to the votes of the returned candidate and the writ petitioner was declared to have won the election.

(iv) The election petitioner's 78 votes were added to the votes of the returned candidate and in place of 27,169 votes that were casted, 27,928 votes were cou