y A ^' •Q IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.^-71 /200S WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 22B/227 OF THE coNStmmoN OF IHDIA PETmONER ^" Tika Ram. S/oShrt 3aggu Ram, agal about 39 years, R/0 Jewari, Post: Bija Bhat, Tahslt : Bemetara, Distrlct: Dura {C.G.}. Veray RESPONDENTS \ .<&•' ^ ^9^/ -SM ./•:-^-—~~~-*~^ /^fl^^ 'l ^S^ili^ ^•^^y ('-T.' •' !i w ^d7 / ^ ;^- ^^ ^^ ^^' ^ ~^ ^^\ 1 ^ ^*'/ 1. State ofChhatttegarh, through Collector, Durq •fChhatUsaarhl-. 2. The Bectlon Coiwnlsslon, through Dlstrtct Rd;urn<ng OfRcer/GollecAor, Durg {Chhattisgarh}- ^-3. The Assistant Retumlng Offlcer/Pr^dlng Offlcer, Booth No. 178, Biock: Bem^ara, Tahsil: Bemetara, Dlstt. : Dura •fChhattlsaarhV ^A. The Returnlng Offlcer {Panchayat}/T"ahslldar, Tahsil : Bemetara, Distt. : Duro <C.G.} ^5. Shri Nathu Ram Kalar, aged about 62yaars, R/0 Vlllage ; Bija Bhat, Tahsll: Bemetara, Distt; : Dura <C.G.} PARTXCUIARS OF THE PE1ITIONER : As stated in the cause Utle above. HI!II 3'^T ^W\v\^, S'tfly^Ko, fifptiy^ ^•••••^4".N:-f-"l-!^::;:'^300 ,gn^[;g^j(<jq[y)<y() w^s 'vf R'fi* Tft?t 3?T^T^i*iieh •p- Tratw^Wf sii^i ^JZOOS bedn Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, coui Shri Prashant Mishra, ^•espondents No.t to 4. , 5hfi Vipra 5en Agr'awal, couns^l Heard learned counsel for the Return has already been filed 4 As the return has dlready to 4, the mafter is being disposed of By the instant writ petitiorj, legaiity--and propriety af the re{ Constituency No.18, Janapad Panc| 15.1.2PQ5;andc6unting.Qfwhicho[lso^ result wasdeclaredon 22.1.2005. The case of the petitioner is Jappad Pcn'iehayat, Bemetra Constitu| including the winning^ cdndidate ham^l herein. The countingslip Annexure Assistant Returning Officer, Beinetj: on 15.1.2005 showing that 58 valid favour, three copies of the Annexu sel for thepetitioner. Additiohal Advocate Seneral for the Stgte/ <t»H|<;1<ll*1 *11^^tf^ [k^ <f^T^K ^'sjfattan^T for respondentNo.5. . barties. : - n behalf of respondents Nb.2 to 4. - filed on behalf of respondehts tslo.2 ^finally the ddmission stdge itself. the petjtioner has questioned the sylt in respeet' of the election pf iflyat, Bemetara, which wos, held. on tookplace on 15.1.2005. Howevep,the Ithat he contested for the member of ^ncy N6.18 dlong'with other candidates ily, Nathu Ram Kalar, respondent No.5 '-1 prepared by respondent No.3, the irg, was handed over to the petitioner liotes in booth No.178 wepe voted in his •e.P-1 were prepdred one of which was Gi.cRJ—ps/350—12/2000—50.0QO. an^i^KMf* '^sff 3?!^'§J)Tn?F <B? <~ •^' •- 's^'^iyi^^^itfty^^ft'ai-y.s*^ -_....^.,^;.,.. '^ ^an^I''T^'^<j°lf^4^T ^reiniT'glN:3nt?r handed ov^r to ^the,.petitio^er ond ofte :Returning Officer/' Tehsildar l^bulafioh chart.^^ Bi^ed brj the counting slip, the. teturnirig Officsr prepared fhe tabu lation ;chttr^ valjd yotes of the^petitioner- o(i]y34.votes were showri as poiled^ in. fawur qf the'pet|tioner,'Qn,-thebasis Annexure P-3 foF.the saicl respondent No.5 Nathu Ram election resulf Arinexure .P-3i .stip^nnexu p-l:^:,:?';:^^.;^ has been meritionsd that in i incorrectlyshown.in fayour.ol bdllots sent to.the Returnina :w*^^^Wtf^i^^s^{^^^. '^atRwati^g: • ':^.:^ (tesppndent No.4), whp 1n turn prepar^cl.the Annewr^ P-2 in wftich instead of showing 58 6f the said; iricorvecf tabulation char'^ resulf postwasdeclaredon 22.1.2pD5 dectaFing Kalar as winnihg caa'ictiddte who secured 674 valid votes. Therefore,<the |)etitjoner llcis prayed for quashment of fhe jantf for^eonSideratjpn' of :'rtie genyine counting Return has'fceen filed'.^n behalf offespbnclehts No.2 to 4 in vuhich' it nnexure P-1 countjng sli(3 58 valjd votes were •the petitioner, whereasi he obtained anly 34 yotes. Frpm the didry'of 1}ie Rresiding Qfficer' alohg wth dccounts df Officer,cop;ieswhereofare'AnnexuresR-2.i& R-3 it would dppeap that in t|ooth^No.l78, the total polled yotes were 432 out of'which 22 ^votes were i^valid.' Thus, We vulid.voNs were wh ich the petitioner' Kadl secjured ^34,yotes. The Prssiciing .Qfficer fffter coffling to khow aboyt the niis1i^,xorreeted^58 vo^s ^ 34^votes <m submittecl the.. aecountsy^'f|ivotes...-to/ ^tl'ie Retuming Qfficer., If. the s%a ^3^ '::?TRI'R^, ; si'aki' is,,'is)<?it'yy<. ^^^...^i&m^ an^i qii K;-)i* 7?8H ^TT^T s^i^t^) •W^I' ^^iRre^fpTsn^i ^ ^rqId^ln^n^ciT^'fe^tT .^srfman^T contention:of thesetitioner.is p6ii?d riiusfhdve been^'46B,;wl issued for the 'po llirig. hobtH ^ unused ond orily 432 vo1ss 4fere u^d.^^ A^ the contention flf the .petitioner is incorrect.' When^ the'Presiciing Officer dndithe he' prepared •tabuiatiomshar^ a le1-ter toi-rtie Oistrict 'Elec under considerdtion before • \ the constituency in question Election Cammissioh' passed ar^ ^he result bf Constituency N oicceoted, then the fiqure of the total vQtes lereas, as per Form 15 totql 590 vo'tes were |b.l78,out of wlijch 158 votes were rerriained l^the teturnjng Qfficar r^ceiyed -t-he diary^of accountsof.theballotsAnnexyresR-ZiSR-S, ^Annexure R-4. } However on receiying tHe tepresent^ion ^ the'petitior|er,'the Returnjng.Officer imrnediately wrote iori Officer vide Annexure R-6 who in turn Sflughl^gutclomce fwwl SlM^EIe^tKW^ le^Stort'Jon Electton Cornmission, the resultof was ho-t- declared. Thepeaf'ter, 'the State 1 order 6n 21.1.200S vide Anne?<ure R-7 that o.18 be declar-ed and accordingly, the resulf was declared. It has been ft^^her mentioned that the wnf petition is not maintainable, the only^remedy avdilable to the petitioner is to question the eiection bywayofelection pe1|tion. ^ , . I hdve perused the re<|al'd- It is true that Annexyre R-l counting to the petitioner by th®Presiding Officer in favour of the. petitioner. After slip was issued ori 15.1;2005 shbwing that 58 votes. were .^yntin^^fcjSini^fflfe^of^o^s.LTObu^ jn respect of 3~^<-^t<<l<?j<<, •8flk(<1<», fslflM1^ ..ys.?,^^........^^•wi^oo^" 3TI^TT5W (i^(i^«<^(T) 311^1 •WfipiW '^T^i^r^^t^ TRiWt^ftagi^ < b|/ ^otling booth No.178 wais; prepared 4'unted the total votes polled in f^i F^residing Officer immediatelY reali: igure of vatid votes cast in favour o1 115 shows that out of 590 bgllots issut jotes remain unused. TTierefore/pen form 18 would show that apparent mi (pfficer. When the Returning Offic< (pfficerandaccountsofthevalid'vo- the tabulation chart .Annexure R-2(: •lowever, on 18.1.2005, the petiti^ Innexure ft-5 before the Retumir^g teturning Officer wrote a letter t^: ^nnexure ft-6 showing the correct pi^t Stdte Election Gommission. Vi< ^ommission on perusin9 the whole ijinnounced. Therefore, from tHe per^ 18 meant for accounts of total votes] the tabulation .chart Annexut'e R-4,| iome mistake at the time of writing Vne Gl.PRJ—FS/351^''1 ^Ttli^ft^ *iw^* ^ f%%) ^W^R ^••siRmCT^r ^ the Presiding Officer and when he :|ivour of the seven candidates, the sd the mistake arid correc-ted the the petitjoner from S8 to 34. Form ,^d 432 votes were used, whereas 158 Isal of Annexure R-3 Form 15 and also ^take wcis committed by the-Presidm^ |r received the diary of the Presiding |es, Annexure R-Z & R-3, he prepared! aiid that wws prepared cot'pectly. mer herein wade a representation Qfficer. Qn ^recejying thiis, the b the District Election Officer vide and in turn sought guidcnce from le Annexure K-7 the Stdte Electibn r^cord permitted the result to be isal of Annexure R-3 Form 15 & Form Dolled in favour of the candidates ond prima facie, disclose thdt there was h the counting, slip and 58 vo-tes were pi<|Ture of 34 in favour ot the petitioner. Therefore, primo-facie i^:iQ^^s^n££h^tis£J5->f'}:.}^~^'^-W l-Ht»—7i sri^svT^nae 'a«!i.3:n^t%ife t Soma ^'^'•*ti"ain''J,'^TH'y:*i<o;:'{s<cii'My. .i.M^.. sn^i"'ra?; ('^{: •TOTOT^fefan^B - r- the explanation giyen in the plausihie and the^petjtioner intervention by .tli is Court but if the petitioner hos sti documerits submitted by the respondents, -then that con be' In the circumstances, availdble to him under the if so advised. In the result, this wrrl dismissed. No costs. : ' Consequently,M.(W.)P.I cbt^id'A'i TFTTf^f •£rf^^ (.N^U ! ^sito'sTi^i ., '.' •etyrn along with documents 'c^pears to be lias not been able to make out d ciise for un<}er Article 226 of the Constitution of India, i any .doybt abouf the correc-tness of the "espondents dnd explanation offered by the jnqujred intp in-an election petition. •^ie petitioner can avail the alternative remedy Panjshayat Act by way of filirig election petition, wri^ petition is liable .to be, dismissed and i't' is 1^0.236/2005 Standsdisposed Qf. ^r 3ttdSe