Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
G.S. Solanki, J.
Arjun Kakodiya - Appellant
Versus
Kamal Marskole - Respondent
Election Petition No. 30-2014
Decided On : 19-12-2014
Election Petition - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 80, Section 81 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951, emphasizing the necessity for pleading material facts and proving how the election result was materially affected by any breach or non-compliance with the Act or rules. The court also highlighted the requirement for specific pleading and proof of irregularities in the counting process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an Election Petition under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent no.1 as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the counting of votes and sought re-inspection/recount of votes and a declaration as the duly elected candidate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove any irregularity in the counting of votes or how the election result was materially affected by any breach or non-compliance with the Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged influence of the ruling party on the District Election Officer and Returning Officer, objections raised during the counting process, and the alleged abnormality in counting of postal ballots.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for specific pleading and proof of irregularities in the counting process and the material effect of any breach or non-compliance with the Act on the election result. It also highlighted the importance of contemporaneous evidence to support material facts.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to bear his own costs and the costs of respondent No. 1.
G.S. Solanki, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this Election Petition under Section 80 read with Section 81 of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) calling in question the election of respondent no.1 as a member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from 114 - Barghat (S.T.) Constituency District Seoni with prayer of calling the entire relevant records and the order for re-inspection/recount of votes polled in Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from 114-Barghat (S.T.) Constituency and further declaration is sought that the election of respondent no.1 may be set aside and instead the petitioner be declared as duly elected candidate.
2. It is undisputed that petitioner was set up as official candidate of Indian National Congress for aforesaid 114- Barghat (S.T.) District Seoni Legislative Assembly Constituency and respondent No. 1 was set up as an official candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party for 114- Barghat (S.T.) District Seoni Legislative Assembly Constituency and other respondents were set up as official candidates for the different parties. It is also undisputed that the elections of aforesaid Assembly was held as per notified programme of Election Commission, date of polling was 25/11/2013 and date of counting and declaration of result was 8.12.2013. It is further undisputed that Shri Bharat Yadav, Collector Seoni District, Seoni was the District Election Officer and Shri K.C. Parte was appointed as Returning Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Seoni was appointed as Officer In-charge for postal ballots pertaining to 114- Barghat (S.T.) District Seoni, Legislative Assembly Constituency.
3. Petitioner's case, in short, is that District Election Officer and Returning Officer have been under the influence of ruling party in the State (BJP) because apparent when at every step of counting of votes on 8.12.2013 they violated the model code of conduct. Petitioner continuously raised objections before the competent authorities, ultimately on the end of counting, the petitioner made an objection/application for recounting of votes in writing on 8.12.2013 at 7.00 pm before the District Election Officer, Seoni District, Seoni. A copy of the same has been received by the Returning Officer 114- Barghat (S.T.) District Seoni Legislative Assembly Constituency regarding recounting of votes and postal ballots. But due to influence of ruling party recounting has not been conducted. Petitioner has raised major abnormality in counting of postal ballots but the District Election Officer and the Returning Officer rejected the same vide order dated 8.12.2013 at frivolous and false grounds and reasons.
4. Petitioner again made an application to the Chief Election Officer, New Delhi through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barghat, District Seoni on 9.12.2013 but same has yet not been decided. Petitioner further filed a detailed representation to the District Election Officer through Returning Officer on 10.12.2013. After counting of votes there was a dispute in relation to number of postal ballots and its polling in favour of the candidates. Petitioner has got some suspicion on counting, therefore, petitioner has applied for recounting on the same reasons and grounds. Petitioner has applied for information relating to the number of postal ballots issued and received back after voting and petitioner got date wise different informations about the postal ballots from the different authorities. Copy of the information received from different authorities are Annexures-EP/6, EP/7 and EP/8. Petitioner has applied for certified copy of Form No. 20 and other documents but due to influence of polling parties, same has not been supplied in time. It is further pleaded that petitioner has filed an application for recounting of votes under Rule 63(2) of Conduct of Election Rules at an appropriate stage but same was rejected on the frivolous grounds that petitioner has
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
