Allahabad High Court
Sobharam vs Up Zila Adhikari/P.A. Lalitpur ... on 22 October, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12787 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sobharam
Respondent :- Up Zila Adhikari/P.A. Lalitpur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yatindra,K.R. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Maneesh Kumar Jain,P.K.Jain
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the elected candidate having secured 533 votes. Respondent no.2 obtained 527 votes and, being aggrieved, filed an election petition alleging that the voters list contained the name of 41 invalid voters. Objection to that effect was filed and the Election Officer accepted the objection and issued a separate list of 41 persons indicating therein that these persons have no right to vote in the election. This list was also supplied to the Election Officer/ the polling agents. Respondent no.2 contended in his election petition that out of these 41 persons, 38 persons have exercised their franchise and have cast their votes in favour of the elected candidate.
The elected candidate denied the allegations. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, summoned the documents and upon comparison found that 30 persons mentioned in the invalid list had exercised their franchise and voted for one party or the other. The tribunal on this basis, found that since these persons had no right to exercise their votes and margin of winning was only six votes, the tribunal declared the election as
invalid and directed re-election for the post of Gram Pradhan. The petitioner who is the elected candidate, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision, which was dismissed and, consequently, the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the tribunal does not contain any reason for declaring the election to be invalid and that the finding arrived at was based on surmises and conjectures, especially when the Returning Officer/ Election Officer was not produced in evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the fact as to whether 30 persons had exercised their votes validly or invalidly could only be done after recording the statement of the Returning Officer/ Election Officer, which had not been done. It was also urged that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce his documents and that the entire exercise done by the tribunal was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that issue no.1 and 4 was decided and the tribunal has given a specific finding that on comparison of the voters list with the invalid voters list, 30 persons have exercised their franchise, which they had no right to exercise. The contention of the petitioner that the basis of comparison has not been indicated cannot be accepted since no evidence in support of the petitioner's submission has been placed before this Court. Nothing has been
placed before the Court as to how many voters were allowed to vote and the total number of votes that was cast. In the absence of such evidence being brought on record, the Court finds that no interference is called for in the findings given by the tribunal on issue no.1 and 4. These findings are based upon appreciation of evidence, which was brought on record, which cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction.
In the light of the aforesaid, the tribunal was justified in declaring the election invalid and it was not necessary that the statement of the Returning Officer/ Election Officer had to be recorded. Further, the contention that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence is erroneous. The Court finds that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the documents. Twice time was granted, which the petitioner failed to adhere and, accordingly, the tribunal closed the evidence of the petitioner. This Court does not find that the action of the tribunal in closing the evidence was arbitrary.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.10.2013
Bhaskar
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
