Hiraman Ratan Baisane vs Election Returning Officer And ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 799 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.P. Devadhar, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The short question raised in this Petition is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional District Judge, Dhule was justified in ordering recounting of votes cast in the Zilla Parishad Election held on 30-11-2003 from the 34, Methi Constituency?

3. In all eight candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had contested the Zilla Parishad Election held on 30-11-2003 from the 34, Methi Constituency of Sindkhed Taluka in Dhule District. The votes cast in the said election were counted on 2-12-2003. As per the election results declared by the Returning Officer (R.O.) on 2-12-2003 the petitioner had polled 3806 votes, the respondent No. 3 had polled 3792 votes and other candidates had polled votes lesser than that. Accordingly, the petitioner who had polled highest votes was declared to have won the election from the 34, Methi Constituency.

4. On 12-12-2003 the respondent No. 3 filed an Election Petition bearing No. 3 of 2003 alleging that after the counting of votes, in fact the R.O. had declared that the respondent No. 3 had polled 3807 votes and the petitioner had polled 3774 votes and accordingly the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected by a margin of 33 votes.

5. The respondent No. 3 further alleged in paragraph 6 of the Election Petition that after declaring the results, the petitioner and his followers' went to the neighbouring room and called the R.O., wherein both of them discussed for one hour. The R.O. had called for the bundles of ballot papers in that room. This conduct of the R.O. and other employees was highly suspicious and objected to by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, in spite of the objections, the R.O. declared that the petitioner has won the election by 14 votes. According to the respondent No. 3, this unexpected declaration of result had shocked and surprised the citizens who were present there and the respondent No. 3 sought recount of votes and made an application to that effect in writing. However, the R.O. rejected the request for recount which is totally illegal.

6. In paragraph 7 of the Election Petition it was alleged that on counting of votes though the respondent No. 3 was found to have polled more votes than the petitioner, the R.O. by misusing his power and under political pressure fabricated false documents and declared that the petitioner has won the Election, which is totally illegal and contrary to law.

7. In paragraph 7A of the petition it was alleged that on some ballot papers there were double markings and this serious matter was also brought to the notice of the R.O. However ignoring the said objections and without declaring such votes to be invalid, the R.O. considered such votes in favour of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner filed his say denying the allegation and opposed the claim for recount. However, the petitioner submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that recount of votes is necessary, then, the same should be carried out by appointing a Commissioner from the office of the Zilla Parishad or the Panchayat Samiti.

9. The trial Court framed the following issues in the Election Petition and answered the same as follows:

          ISSUES                      FINDINGS
1. Whether the allegations
contained in paragraph 6,
7 and 7A of the Election
Petition as well as in the
application for recounting
of votes made to the Returning
Officer, make out a case for
recounting of votes on the
grounds of materially
affecting the result of
the election?                       Yes
2. Is the petitioner entitled       Yes. But after recounting if,
to be declared as elected, and      he secured more votes.
for the prayer of cancellation
of the Dhule Zilla Parishad
election for 34 Methi
Constituency, Taluka :
Sindkheda, dated 30-11-2003?
3. What order and relief the       As per final order
petitioner is entitled to?
 

10. In support of his case, the respondent No. 3 adduced his oral evidence and also examined three witnesses namely Vikram Tanaji Pawar (Exhibit 50), Ramkrishna J. More (Exhibit 51) and Hiralal N. Patil (Exhibit 52). All the witnesses were cross-examined. The R.O. though appeared in the Election Petition by filing purshis, chose not to lead oral evidence despite serious allegations were made against him in the Election Petition. Similarly the petitioner chose to file purshis but not to lead oral evidence.

11. After considering the pleadings, oral evidence and the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties by the impugned judgment the learned A.D.J. passed the following order:

ORDER

1. Election Petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed.

2. The request of the petitioner for recounting, is hereby granted. The application to appoint Court Commissioner for recounting, is hereby granted.

3. The Resident Deputy Collector, Dhule, is hereby appointed Court Commissioner for recounting of the total votes cast in 34 Methi Constituency of Shindkheda Taluka, District: Dhule, in the election for Dhule Zilla Parishad held on 30-11-2003. He is directed to recount the total votes and submit his report to the Court on or before 5-6-2006.

4. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) by way of Commissioner fee in Court.

5. The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to deposit the ballot box in Court for recounting as per the date notified by the Court Commissioner.

6. Issue Commissioner order accordingly.

7. The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to pay the cost of this Petition to the petitioner and bear their own costs.

12. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present Petition is filed.

13. Mr. P.M. Shah learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations of the respondent No. 3 that initially the Returning Officer had declared that the respondent No. 3 had polled 3807 votes is falsified by his own Application made before the Returning Officer on 2-12-2003 wherein the respondent No. 3 admitted to have polled 3792 votes. If the allegations set out in the Election Petition were true, then, in the common course of natural events, at the first available opportunity availed by seeking recounting of votes before the R.O., the respondent No. 3 would have stated such results as a ground to justify the prayer for recount. On the contrary, the respondent No. 3 had stated in his application before the R.O. that he had polled 3792 votes. This admission of the respondent No. 3 before the R.O. completely destroys his stand in the Election Petition that he had polled 3807 votes. Therefore, the said allegation made in the Election Petition which was filed after 10 days of the declaration of election results is manifestly an afterthought.

14. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jabarsingh v. Gendlal, , Mr. Shah submitted that the enquiry in the Election Petition would commence in every case with prima facie presumption in favour of the validity of voting papers, which have been counted. In the present case there was a multi candidate contest from the 34, Methi Constituency and the counting process was being supervised and watched by 8 election candidates, their election agents as well as counting agents. Thus the counting process was in the public gauge. It is improbable that an independent functionary like the R.O. could replace election results more particularly when it is witnessed publicly by so many persons as also the counting staff. The respondent No. 3 has not examined any other contesting candidate or their election agents or counting agents to corroborate the allegations made in the Petition.

15. Mr. Shah submitted that the entire counting process was videographed and these video cassettes have not been offered by the respondent No. 3 as a legal evidence in the proceedings.

16. Mr. Shah submitted that the respondent No. 3 had examined his election agent and counting agent. These two witnesses have not stated that the R.O. had initially declared that the respondent No. 3 had polled 3807 votes as contended in the Election Petition. Even the third witness namely Vikram Tanaji Pawar examined by the respondent No. 3 has not corroborated the case of the respondent No. 3. The said witness has only stated that there were bogus voting in the name of dead persons which was not an issue framed in the Election Petition.

17. Relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S. Baldev v. Jeja Singh, 1975(4) SC 406, Chandrika Prastid Yadav v. State of Bihar , Mr. Chinnasamy v. K. C.P. Lamisamy Mr. Shah submitted that it is now well settled that judicial recount is not a matter of right. There is difference between the recount within the counting station and the judicial recount. The judicial power of recount is to be exercised sparingly. The principle of maintaining secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct. The narrow margin of votes or no prejudice to the other side is a not ground for ordering judicial recount. High degree of proof is required for ordering judicial recount. In the present case the learned Judge has not recorded any specific finding about the alleged replacement of result sheets. The learned Judge in para 28 of the Judgment has held that the R.O. is guilty of committing breach of duty by rejecting the application for recount without any sufficient reason. He submitted that the learned Judge has arrived at the above conclusion by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda, . Mr. Shah submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts because in that case the R.O. had failed to decide the application for recount, whereas, in the present the application for recount was rejected by the R.O. and the same was not the subject-matter of the election petition. Mr. Shah submitted that the entire judgment is vitiated by non-application of mind, application of wrong test and overlooking the first principles relating to law of elections settled since long. Accordingly Mr. Shah submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

18. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the R.O. while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Shah submitted that irrespective of the fact that the R.O. has not entered the witness box, the burden of establishing the allegation made in the election petition was on the respondent No. 3 and that burden has not been discharged and therefore the learned Judge was not justified in ordering judicial recount.

19. Mr. Totla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that the impugned order passed on 29-4-2006 is an interlocutory order and it is a settled position in law that the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate Court and cannot appreciate the entire evidence. In this connection he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Messaji v. Gulamali, reported in 2005 (5) Mh.LJ. 56 : 2005(2) All M.R. 320.

20. Mr. Totla further submitted that for the first time in the Writ Petition a plea is raised regarding the application made by the respondent No. 3 before the R.O. seeking recount. This aspect was neither pleaded in the written statement filed in the election petition nor any oral evidence was led by the petitioner and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to raise that plea for the first time in this Petition. In any event, rejection of an application for recount by R.O. does not bar filing of an election petition and therefore even though the application for recount was rejected by R.O., in the facts of the present case, the trial Judge was justified in ordering recount.

21. Mr. Totla relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Harischandra Patil v. Maharashtra Medical Council, reported in 2004 (5) Mh.LJ. 429 : 2002(3) All M.R. 857 submitted that once a party gives evidence in support of his case and there is no contrary evidence on record, then under Sections 101, 102 and 114 of the Evidence Act the presumption is that he speaks the truth because of the oath he takes and the burden is on that person who challenges the veracity of that statement to establish that the statement made on oath is not true. If this burden is not discharged by any of the recognized legal methods, there can be no legal justification for not relying on the statement of the witness given on oath. In the present case the charges set out in the election Petition have been proved by leading evidence of the respondent No. 3 and three other witness. Since no contrary evidence is led to counter the testimony adduced on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the learned Judge was justified in ordering recount.

22. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kisanlal Rathi v. Dinkar Patil, reported in 2004 (5) Mh.LJ. 420 : 2003(4) ALL M.R. 1083 Mr. Totla submitted that in view of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the petitioner and the R.O. as they have failed to give any evidence in spite of serious allegations levelled against them.

23. Mr. Totla further submitted that even if the burden was on the respondent No. 3 to establish his case for seeking recount, in the facts of the present case no exception can be taken to the decision of the trial Court which is based on the material on record. In this connection Mr. Totla relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh, Tohra, and submitted that though secrecy of ballot is a vital principle to be followed to ensure free and fair elections, it is not well established that the foundation of free and fair election is based on secrecy of ballot coupled with purity of elections. Both can co-exist but where one is used to destroy the other, then, the principle of secrecy of ballot must yield to the principle of purity of election in the larger public interest.

24. Lastly, Mr. Totla submitted that though the judgment of the Court is not happily worded, taking overall view of the matter the finding recorded by the trial Judge in ordering judicial recount cannot be faulted. In this connection he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gaur Chandra Basu v. Ruchira Ashok Sonde, reported in 2004 (5) Mh.LJ. 441 : 2003(1) BCR 438. Accordingly Mr. Totla submitted that no case is made out for interference in a writ jurisdiction and therefore the Writ Petition must be dismissed.

25. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival parties.

26. Under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 ("Act" for short), the District Judge is empowered to enquire and determine the validity of the elections held to the Zilla Parishads. Section 27(2) of the Act provides that the Judge after conducting the enquiry as he deems fit shall pass an order either confirming or amending the entire declared results of the election. Section 27(5)(a) of the Act empowers the Judge to disqualify a candidate if he finds that the said candidate is found to be guilty of corrupt practice. Section 27(5)(b) of the Act with which we are concerned in the present Petition provides that where the validity of election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the Judge, after scrutinising and computation of the votes polled by each candidate, is of the opinion that a candidate other than the returned candidate has polled more votes, then, the Judge can declare that the election of the returned candidate is void and then deal with the question as to whether the person who has filed the election petition or some other person can be said to have been duly elected.

27. In the present case, the respondent No. 3 had filed the Election Petition on 12-12-2003 seeking judicial recount on the basis of the serious allegations made in the Election Petition against the R.O. The respondent No. 3 further sought a declaration that the decision of the R.O. declaring the petitioner to be a winner be held to be void and the respondent No. 3 be declared to have won the election.

28. The first question therefore to be considered in the Election Petition was whether the respondent No. 3 has made out a case for judicial recount and secondly, if the judicial recount is necessary, then, whether on judicial recount the election of the petitioner has to be declared as void and whether the respondent No. 3 or some other person has to be declared as elected.

29. By the impugned order dated 29-4-2006 the learned Judge has allowed the Election Petition partly, by appointing a Court Commissioner for judicial recount of votes cast in 34, Methi Constituency and directing him to submit a report on or before 5-6-2006. However, even before the judicial recount is actually carried out, the learned Judge has answered the issue No. 2 set out in paragraph 9 of the judgment by holding that the respondent No. 3 is entitled to be declared as elected if after recounting he is found to have polled more votes.

30. In my opinion, the learned Judge ought not to have answered the issue No. 2 till the judicial recount was carried out. If after judicial recount the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the election of the petitioner is void, then unless a declaration to that effect was made, the learned Judge could not and ought not to have held that the respondent No. 3 is entitled to be declared as winner if he secures highest votes in the judicial recount. Therefore, it was totally improper on the part of the learned Judge to prejudge the issue even before the judicial recount was actually carried out.

31. That apart, the question to be considered in this Petition is, whether the judicial recount of votes ordered by the learned Judge is justifiable or not?

32. It is now well established in law that the judicial recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course. It is true that the purity of election has to be maintained at all costs and where the purity of election is in jeopardy the secrecy of ballot cannot come in the way of ordering judicial recount. Whether, the allegation of misconduct or illegality alleged in the Election Petition have been prima facie established in the present case, is the question to be decided in this Petition.

33. By the impugned order the learned Judge has ordered judicial recount for the following reasons:

(a) the respondent No. 3 in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the Election Petition has specifically averred that after the counting was over, the R.O. had initially announced that the respondent No. 3 had polled 3807 votes, and that the petitioner had polled only 3774 votes and accordingly the respondent No. 3 was declared to be a winner. It is alleged that after an hour or so, the R.O. surprisingly sought to declare that the petitioner has won the election. Thereupon, the respondent No. 3 sought recount of votes which was rejected by the R.O. without any sufficient cause. This conduct of R.O. was not proper and according to the learned Judge the R.O. has failed in discharging the statutory duty cast upon him.

(b) In para 34 of the Judgment the learned Judge has observed that after the counting was over, the respondent No. 3 and his polling agents had raised objection before the R.O. in connection with the total votes secured by the respondent No. 3 and the total votes secured by the petitioner and even in the Election Petition the respondent No. 3 has raised objection regarding counting of votes and thus the respondent No. 3 had discharged the burden cast upon him.

(c) In para 36 of the Judgment the learned Judge has observed that under Section 27(5)(b) of the Act it was obligatory on the Judge hearing the Election Petition to order scrutiny and computation of ballot papers as soon as a candidate who could not obtain recount at the hands of the R.O. files an election petition by alleging that there had been irregularity in counting of ballot papers. In other words, the finding is that mere allegation in the Election Petition is sufficient to order judicial recount.

34. Thus, in the present case, the learned Judge has ordered judicial recount of votes mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to the learned Judge the R.O. was in error in rejecting the application for recount and mere allegation in the Election Petition that there has been irregularity in counting the ballot papers is sufficient to order the recount of votes. Secondly, according to the learned Judge by raising objection before the R.O. and in the Election Petition the respondent No. 3 has discharged the burden cast upon him for seeking judicial recount.

35. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has not given any finding on the allegation of the respondent No. 3 that the R.O. committed a grave misconduct by initially declaring the respondent No. 3 to be a winner and after an hour or so in fabricating the election results and declaring the petitioner to be a winner. The learned Judge has ordered judicial recount mainly on the ground that the R.O. despite objections, wrongfully and in breach of statutory obligation has rejected the application of the respondent No. 3 for recount in the counting hall itself. This reasoning given by the learned Judge is wholly unsustainable because, firstly, the Election Petition No. 3 of 2003 was not filed by the respondent No. 3 to challenge the order of the R.O. on 2-12-2006 rejecting the application for recount made by the respondent No. 3 in the counting hall itself. Secondly, under Rule 64(2) of the Zilla Parishads Election Rules, application for recount is required to be made in writing stating the grounds on which the recount is sought. Admittedly the application made by the respondent No. 3 on 2-12-2003 before the R.O. did not contain any ground for seeking recount and therefore, the order passed by the R.O. on 2-12-2003 in rejecting the application for recount cannot be faulted. Thirdly, the application for recount was made to the R.O. by respondent No. 3, after the petitioner was declared to have been elected. Under Rule 64(6) of the Zilla Parishads Election Rules, once the R.O. signs the result sheet in Form XI, no application for recount could be entertained. Thus the application for recount made after the declaration of results was not maintainable. Fourthly, when the allegation that the R.O. illegally changed the result sheet was raised for the first time in the Election Petition, the R.O. could not be accused of committing breach of statutory duties by not permitting the recount of votes. In these circumstances the judicial recount ordered by the learned Judge on the ground that the R.O. committed an error in discharging the statutory duties cast upon him is wholly unjustified.

36. The finding recorded by the learned Judge that by raising objection before the R.O. and in the Election Petition regarding the irregularities allegedly "committed by the R.O., the respondent No. 3 has discharged the burden cast upon him is also unsustainable, in law. As rightly contended by Mr. Shah, the enquiry in the Election Petition would commence in every case with a prima facie presumption that the counting process has been carried out in accordance with law. Whoever asserts that the said process has not been carried out in accordance with law has to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, unless the allegations made in the Election Petition are substantiated by cogent evidence, judicial recount could not be ordered merely on the basis of the testimony of the respondent No. 3. The learned Judge committed an error in holding that by raising objections before the R.O. and by raising the objections in the Election Petition, the respondent No. 3 has discharged the burden cast upon him.

37. Even otherwise, the allegation that initially the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected with 3807 votes is falsified by the application made by the respondent No. 3 to the R.O. on 2-12-2003. In the said application it was stated that the respondent No. 3 had polled 3774 votes. If the respondent No. 3 was in fact declared elected with 3807 votes, then certainly the respondent No. 3 would have made a grievance to that effect in his application for recount dated 2-12-2003. The fact that no such allegation was made in the application for recount dated 2-12-2003 clearly shows that the allegations made in the election petition on 12-12-2003 were clearly an afterthought.

38. The allegation in the Election Petition is that after declaring the respondent No. 3 to have won the election with 3807 votes, the R.O. discussed the matter with the petitioner for about an hour in the neighbouring room and thereafter declared that the petitioner has won the election with 3806 votes. Once the election results are declared the entire process comes to an end and there was nothing further to be done in the matter. If the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected, then why did he wait for an hour or so in the counting hall? No explanation is given by the respondent No. 3 in that behalf. This conduct of the respondent No. 3 clearly belies his contention regarding the initial declaration and the subsequent change in the result sheets.

39. Though the respondent No. 3 has examined three witnesses, none of them have deposed that initially the R.O. had declared that the respondent No. 3 has won the election by 3807 votes. Thus the allegation of the respondent No. 3 that initially he was declared to have been elected is not even corroborated by his own witnesses who were in fact the election agent/counting agent of the respondent.

40. Admittedly the counting of votes took place in presence of 8 candidates, their election agents, counting agents and other counting staff. None of them have been examined by the respondent No. 3. They were the independent witnesses whose deposition would have clearly enabled the Court to ascertain as to what actually transpired after the counting was over. However, the respondent No. 3 has not examined any of those independent witnesses.

41. It is not in dispute that the entire counting process was videographed and the video cassettes of counting process were available. Those cassettes would have revealed the truth. However, the respondent No. 3 for the reasons best known to him has chosen not to rely on those tapes. Tt was however, contended by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 that the video cassettes were with the R.O. and he could have produced the same. Since the burden of proving the allegation contained in the Election Petition was on the respondent No. 3, it was for him to rely on such evidence. Therefore, no fault can be found with the R.O. in that behalf.

42. Even the allegations regarding double markings on the ballot papers made by the respondent No. 3 and his witnesses are totally vague and they have not even stated on which counting table double markings were found and who was the concerned counting officer. Therefore, judicial recount on that count is also unjustified.

43. From the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 had made wild allegations in the Election Petition but failed to establish the same by adducing cogent evidence. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the respondent No. 3 has discharged the burden cast upon him so as to order judicial recount cannot be accepted.

44. It was contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 that since the petitioner and the R.O. have not entered the witness box, the depositions made by the respondent No. 3 and his witnesses which remain uncontroverted are liable to be accepted as truthful deposition and therefore, judicial recount ordered on the basis of the evidence on record cannot be faulted. In this connection the learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Harischandra Patil (supra). In my opinion, the said decision has no relevance to the facts of the present case. As stated earlier, the case of misconduct on the part of R.O. alleged by the respondent No. 3 is falsified by the conduct of the respondent No. 3 himself and even the witnesses examined by the respondent No. 3 have not deposed that initially the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected. Thus apart from the testimony of the respondent No. 3 that he was initially declared to have been elected, there is not an iota of evidence to support this allegation. As stated earlier the application made by respondent No. 3 to the R.O. on 2-12-2003 falsifies his oral deposition that initially the respondent No. 3 was declared to have been elected.

45. It was contended that the application made by the respondent No. 3 before the R.O. seeking recount was not relied upon by the petitioner in the proceedings before the lower Court and therefore the same could not be relied upon in the present Writ Petition. The learned Judge has ordered judicial recount mainly on the ground that the R.O. was not justified in rejecting the application for recount and that the R.O. failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him. Moreover, the specific issue raised before the trial Court was whether the allegations made in the application before the R.O. make out a case for recount. Therefore, reference made in the Writ Petition to the application made by the respondent No. 3 to the R.O. cannot be faulted.

46. Reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 on the decision of this Court in the case of Kisanlal Rathi (supra). In my opinion the said decision has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The question of drawing adverse inference against the petitioner and the R.O. for not entering the box would arise only if a prima facie case is made out for judicial recount. As stated above, the application made by the respondent No. 3 before the R.O. as also the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent No, 3 do not suggest even remotely that the R.O. initially declared the respondent Np. 3 to be a winner and subsequently after changing the result sheets declared the petitioner to be a winner.

47. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Raghbir Singh Gill (supra) has no application to the present case as no case is made out so as to create doubt regarding the purity of the election results declared by the R.O.

48. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order permitting judicial recount cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29-4-2006 ordering judicial recount is quashed and set aside. However there will be no order as to costs.