Back
2007(1) JLJ 54
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Ramavtar Budhouwa v. Smt. Susheela Singh and others
Writ Petition No. 16309 of 2005 (Jabalpur); Decided on 29.5.2006.
Recounting was demanded on the ground that there was no sufficient arrangement of the light and electricity was often unavailable or there was continuously break down in the electricity supply creating darkness. The allegations are that the valid votes were kept in the rejected votes and some invalid votes or votes cast in favour of respondent No.1 were kept in the bundle of votes of the petitioner. [Para 24
Held: Aforesaid allegations have been proved by the election petitioner by evidence which has been relied on by the election tribunal. Now in the case, as per order passed by this Court dated 19.12.2005, recounting has been done and as stated at the Bar by the respondents and not disputed by the petitioner, that after the recounting result has changed and respondent Smt. Susheela Singh has got 24 more votes in comparison to the petitioner. Aforesaid result of the recounting shows that the grounds for recounting as alleged by the election petitioner were, justified and the satisfaction of the SDO in this regard is on sound reasoning. [Para 24
A democratic process has been set up for the constitution of the Panchayat. In the democratic process, a person is to be elected by the villagers of the Panchayat and person who gets higher votes has to be declared as a returned candidate. It would really be a mockery of the democratic process if a person who achieves less votes is declared as a returned candidate while a person who in fact achieves higher votes has to remain outside of the office, merely because there was some high-handedness or illegality during the counting. If after recounting, the result of initial counting is changed or election petitioner is found to be achiever of higher votes, this by itself is a ground to assume justification for the recounting, provided, the election tribunal before directing recounting has considered the case on merits on appreciation of evidence and material produced before it and found a case for recount after objective satisfaction. AIR 2003 SC 2271, (2003)6 SCC 452 and 2002(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 300 (Se) followed. 2005(3) JLJ 48 relied on. AIR 1964 SC 1249, (2000)8 SCC 355, (2000)1 SCC 261, (2002)3 SCC 742 and 2003(2) JLJ 232 distinguished. [Para 25
(2) Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (M.P.) -- Rr.80(5), 77(2) and 77(4) -- whether application for recount of votes was filed before or after declaration of result -- result sheet duly signed by authorised officer is the best evidence.
Though on the basis of the oral evidence, the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded a finding that the aforesaid applications were filed before the declaration of the result and signing of the result -sheet by the authorised officer while the aforesaid factual position is controverted by the petitioner. But in this case if petitioner raised the aforesaid contention, he ought to have brought on record. The result sheet signed by the authorised officer. Under rule 80(5) of the Nirvachan Niyam, after declaration of result under subd`rule (2) of rule 77 or subd`rule (4) the authorised officer shall complete and sign the result sheet, hence the best evidence was of filing of the result-sheet duly signed by the authorised officer, but there is no such evidence that the applications Annexure R1-2 and RI-3 were filed after signing of the result-sheet by the authorised officer. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the aforesaid applications were filed before the declaration of the result and signing of the result-sheet by the authorised officer, appears to be correct. [Para 14
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.17 -- admission made by co-defendant-not binding on a defendant. [Para 15
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.21 and 17 -- admissions duly proved-are admissible irrespective of the fact whether person making them appears in the witness box or not -- if he appears as a witness, may be confronted with admissions on giving to statement contrary to those admissions. [Para 15
(5) Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- R.5 -- election petition on the basis of recounting of votes -- material fact that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes etc. should be pleaded. 2006 AIR sew 4 and (2000)8 SCC 355 followed. [Paras 16 & 20
(6) Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (M.P.) -- Rr.80(2), 80(5), 77(2) and 77(4) -- application for recount of votes made to Returing Officer -- Returing Officer is under obligation to decide the same. [Para 23
¼1½ iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 80¼2½] 80¼5½ rFkk 77¼2½ && e-iz- iapk;r ¼fuokZpu vftZ;k¡] Hkz"V vkpj.k rFkk lnL;rk d fy, fujgZrk½ fu;e] 1995 && fu- 21] 23 rFkk 5 && fuokZpu vthZ es ;Fkk izdfFkr iquxZ.kuk ds vk/kkj lkfcr ik, x, && fuokZpu vthZnkj dks 24 er vf/kd izkIr gksuk ik;k x;k && izkjafHkd varj dsoy ,d er dk Fkk && iquxZ.ku fof/kekU; gSA iquxZ.kuk dh ek¡x bl vk/kkj ij dh xbZ Fkh fd izdk‘k dh i;kZIr O;oLFkk ugha Fkh vkSj fo|qr cgq/kk vuqiyC/k Fkh vFkok fo|qr iznk; esa fujarj [kjkch ls va/ksjk gks tkrk FkkA vfHkdFku ;g gS fd fof/kekU; er iz{ksfir erksa esa j[k fn, x, Fks rFkk dqN vfof/kekU; er ;k izR;{khZ Ø-1 ds i{k esa fn, x, er ;kph ds erksa ds caMyksa esa j[k fn, x, FksA ¿iSjk 24À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr vfHkdFku fuokZpu vthZnkj }kjk lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd, x, gS ftudk fuokZpu vf/kdj.k }kjk voyac fy;k x;k gSA vc bl ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 19-12-2005 ds vuqlkj iquxZ.kuk dh tk pqdh gS vkSj izR;FkhZx.k }kjk tSlk U;k;ky; esa dFku fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;kph }kjk fookfnr ugha gS] iquxZ.kuk ds i‘pkr~ ifj.kke ifjofrZr gks x;k gS vkSj izR;FkhZ Jherh lq‘khyk flag us ;kph dh rqyuk esa 24 er vf/kd izkIr fd, gSaA iquxZ.kuk ds iwoksZDr ifj.kke ls nf‘kZr gS fuokZpu vthZnkj }kjk ;Fkk vfHkdfFkr iquxZ.kuk ds vk/kkj U;k;ksfpr Fks vkSj bl ckjs esa mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dh lek/kku ;qfDr;qDr rdZ ij ls FkkA ¿iSjk 24À iapk;r ds xBu ds fy, yksdrkaf=d izfØ;k cukbZ xbZ gSA yksdrkaf=d izfØ;k esa O;fDr] iapk;r ds xzketu }kjk fuokZfpr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS vkSj ftlds vf/kd er gksrs gSa mls fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dh Hkk¡fr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ;g yksdrkaf=d izfØ;k dk oLrqr% migkl gksxk ;fn og O;fDr ftlus de izkIr fd, gSa] fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ ?kksf"kr dj fn;k tkrk gS] in ls oafpr jguk iM+rk gS] dsoy bl dkj.k fd x.kuk ds le; fujadq‘krk vFkok voS/krk gqbZA ;fn iqux.kuk ds i‘pkr~ ewy x.kuk dk ifj.kke ifjofrZr gks tkrk gs vFkok fuokZpu vthZnkj dks vf/kd er izkIr gksuk ik;k tkrk gS] ;g Lo;a dh iquxZ.kuk U;k;ksfpr ekus tkus dk vk/kkj gS ;fn iquxZ.kuk funsf‘kr djus ds iwoZ fuokZpu vf/kdj.k us mlds le{k izLrqr lk{; vkSj lkexzh dk ewY;kdau dj ds ekeys ij xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fopkj dj fy;k gS vkSj oLrqfu"B lek/kku ds i‘pkr~ iquxZ.kuk ds fy, ekeyk ik;k gSA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 2271] ¼2003½6 ,l lh lh 452 rFkk 2002¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 300 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2005¼3½ ts ,y ts 48 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1249] ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 335] ¼2001½1 ,l lh lh 261] ¼2002½3 ,l lh lh 742 rFkk 2003¼2½ ts ,y ts 232 izHksfnrA ¿iSjk 25À ¼2½ iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 80¼2½] 77¼2½ rFkk 77¼4½ && erksa dh iquxZ.kuk ds fy, vkosnu ifj.kke dh ?kks"k.kk gksus ds iwoZ fn;k x;k Fkk vFkok ckn esa && izkf/kdkjh }kjk lE;d~ :is.k gLrk{kfjr ifj.kke&i=d loksZÙke lk{; gSA ;|fi] ekSf[kd lk{; ij ls mi[kaM vf/kdkjh us fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr fd;k gS fd iwoksZDr vkosnu ifj.kke ?kksf"kr gksus ds vkSj izkf/k—r izkf/kdkjh }kjk ifj.kke&i=d ij gLrk{kj fd, tkus ds iwoZ Qkby fd, x, Fks tcfd iwoksZDr rkfF;d fLFkfr dk ;kph us izR;k[;ku fd;k gSA fdarq bl ekeys esa ;fn ;kph us iwoksZDr iz‘u mBk;k gS] mlds }kjk izkf/k—r izkf/kdkjh }kjk gLrk{kfjr ifj.kke&i=d vfHkys[kxr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA fu;e 77 ds mifu;e ¼2½ vFkok ¼4½ ds v/khu ifj.kke ?kksf"kr djus ds i‘pkr~ fuokZpu fu;eksa ds fu;e 80¼5½ ds v/khu] izkf/k—r dks ifj.kke&i=d iwjk vkSj gLrk{kfjr djuk gksrk gS vr% loksZÙke lk{;] izkf/k—r vf/kdkjh }kjk lE;d~ :is.k gLrk{kfjr ifj.kke&i= Qkby fd;k tkuk Fkk fdarq ,slk lk{; ugha gS fd vkosnu mikca/k vkj 1&2 vkSj vkj 1&3] izkf/k—r vkf/kdkjh }kjk ifj.kke&i=d gLrk{kfjr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ Qkby fd, x, FksA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dk ;g fu"d"kZ fd iwoksZDr vkosnu izkf/k—r vf/kdkjh }kjk ifj.kke ?kks"k.kk vkSj ifj.kke&i=d ij gLrk{kj djus ds iwoZ Qkby fd;k x;k Fkk] lgh izrhr gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 14À ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 17 && lg&izfroknh }kjk Loh—fr && vU; izfroknh ij ck/;dj ughaaA ¿iSjk 15À ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 21 rFkk 17 && Loh—fr lE;d~ :i ls lkfcr && bl rF; ls fujis{k xzkg~; gS fd mldk drkZ lk{kh dB?kj esa milatkr gksrk gS ;k ugha && ;fn lk{kh dh Hkk¡fr milatkr gksrk gS] ml Loh—fr ds foijhr dFku nsus ij mldk lkeuk ml Loh—fr ls djk;k tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 15À ¼5½ iapk;r ¼fuokZpu vftZ;k¡] Hkz"V vkpj.k rFkk lnL;rk ds fy, fujgZrk½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 5 && iquxZ.kuk ds vk/kkj ij fuokZpu vthZ && vfof/kekU; er Lohdkj fd, tkus ;fn vkfn ds rkfRod rF;ksa dk vfHkopu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 2006 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 4 rFkk ¼2000½8 ,l lh lh 355 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16 ,oa 20À ¼6½ iapk;r fuokZpu fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 80¼2½] 80¼5½ rFkk 77¼2½ rFkk 77¼4½ && fjVfuZax vkfQlj dks erksa dh iquxZ.kuk ds fy, vkosnu && fjVfuZax vkfQlj fofuf‘pr djus ds fy, ck/;rk/khu gSA ¿iSjk 23À
1. Petitioner, who was a returned candidate in the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pachokhar, Janpad Panchayat Rampurnaikin, District Sidhi, in the election held on 27.1.2005, is aggrieved by an order dated 12.12.2005 Annexure P-3 passed by the respondent No. 11 the election tribunal, in the election petition filed by respondent No.1 Smt. Sushila Singh under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by which the election tribunal has directed for the recounting of the votes.
2. This petition was filed on 14.12.2005. On 16.12.2005, this matter was listed for hearing and this Court directed that till 19.12.2005 status quo as on 16.12.2005 be maintained. The case was listed on 19.12.2005 on which date this Court directed that the authority shall proceed to recount of the votes but result shall not be declared and the order dated 16.12.2005 was modified accordingly.
3. It will be pertinent to mention that in view of the order dated 19.12.2005, the recounting has been conducted in the presence of the parties and it is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that after recounting, though the result has not been declared but the respondent No.1 has achieved 24 votes more in comparison to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has assailed the order Annexure P-3 on following grounds :
(i) That, there are no grounds for recounting, in absence of pleadings and evidence, recounting ought not to have been directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In absence of specific allegations in respect of the counting, counting could not be challenged by the petitioner.
(ii) That, the respondent No.1, if was aggrieved, ought to have filed an application after announcement in respect of total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of rule 77 of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Nirvachan Niyam") but the application was filed after the declaration of the result of the election and completion of the result-sheet under sub-rule (2) of rule 77 of the Nirvachan Niyam. Once the result of election was declared, the application itself was not entertain able before the authority and the election tribunal erred in allowing the prayer of the respondent No.1 for the recounting.
(iii) That the petitioner has referred various paragraphs of election petition filed before the election tribunal and submitted that in view of the pleadings and evidence adduced before the election tribunal, no case is made out for the recounting.
(iv) That on the basis of the vague evidence produced before the election tribunal, the election tribunal erroneously directed for the recounting.
Petitioner has placed reliance to the apex court judgments in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai [AIR 1964 se 1249], Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger and others [(2000)1 SCC 261], Vadivelu v. Sundaram and others [(2000)8 SCC 355], P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa [(2002)3 SCC 742], and judgment of this Court in Chandrawati (Smt.) v. Smt. Vijay Rajkumari and others [2003(2) JLJ 232], and submitted that no case for recounting is made out.
5. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submitted:
(i) That, the Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order has rightly directed for the recounting. The respondent No.1 was apprehending serious irregularities and illegalities during the polling and on 16.1.2005 before the polling moved an application Annexure R-l-l. During recounting, respondent No.1 was again apprehending serious irregularities and ill-legalities, so moved an application on 19.1.2005 Annexure R-I-2 before counting to the Presiding Officer. Again after counting, respondent No.1 moved an application to the Presiding Officers of polling booth Nos. 129, 130, 131 and 132 Annexure R-I-3 for the recounting. Aforesaid applications were filed immediately with promptness by the respondent No.1.
(ii) That, once the application
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
