1994 PLP 1038 (CLC)

(3) The polling bags remained in unauthorized custody on 2‑12‑1993 and in case of three polling stations the bags came from unspecified custody on 6‑12‑1993. (4) The result of five polling stations was received at 12‑00 mid‑night while the result was passed on by the Returning Officer to the District Returning Officer at 10‑30 p.m. (5) The statement of the count on Form XIV were found missing from the polling bags of 17‑18 polling stations. (6) The result was manipulated. The statements of the count provided by the Returning Officer to the polling agent of the applicant in respect of Polling Station No.196 is different from the count available on record. This allegation was made orally by the counsel of the petitioner. (7) The seals on the polling bags of five polling stations were found broken, without any explanation. (8) Most of the results were changed as they did not contain the signatures of the applicant's agent as required under section 38(3) of the Act. (9) The ballot‑papers declared invalid were missing from the bag of Polling Station No.25, ballot‑papers were missing from the bags of Polling Station No‑56 and ballot‑papers were not properly accounted for in case of six polling stations. (10) All invalid ballot‑papers were not examined by the Returning Officer as required under section 39(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. (11) Copy of the consolidated statement of the result (Form XVI) and the Result of Count (Form XVII) was not provided by the Returning Officer to the petitioner as per section 40(b) of the Act.

3. The petition was referred to the Returning Officer for comments. He has denied the allegations and has maintained that the result was consolidated in the presence of all concerned, in accordance with law under the supervision of District Returning Officer. As a result, "not an iota of manipulation has been found in the result of any of the polling station". A copy of the comments offered by him was supplied to the counsel for petitioner as well as to the counsel for respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the comments of Returning Officer, affidavits of eight witnesses and contended that result of election would have been materially affected had the Returning Officer conducted the proceedings of consolidation according to law.

5. The counsel for the respondent rebutted all the allegations stating that the petitioner used strong‑arm tactics to force the Returning Officer to declare the result in his favour and the Returning Officer acted according to law in extremely unfavourable circumstances at the time of compilation of result on 2‑12‑1993. He also pointed out that an F.I.R. was lodged by the Returning Officer in this respect with the local police which according to him is lying under seal with the police. He controverted the averments made by the counsel for the petitioner and contended that result of election was consolidated by the Returning Officer in the presence of District Returning Officer, the petitioner alongwith his counsel, the main respondent and his counsel and a large number of Press representatives. No such objection was then raised by the petitioner or his counsel as have been agitated in the petition though during the consolidation proceedings at every stage they were asked by the District Returning Officer if they had any objection. The learned counsel further contended that no irregularity or illegality is apparent on the face of record and the petition is, therefore, not maintainable under section 103‑AA of the Act.

6. After hearing both the parties at length, I am of the view that the allegations made by the petitioner are factual requiring detailed inquiry and evidence. No case patents on the face of the record for violation of legal provisions has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction section 103‑AA of the Act.

7. The grounds urged in support of this petition cannot be disposed of in a summary way as the `allegations' require examination of witnesses and a detailed inquiry which cannot be subject‑matter of a petition under section 103‑AA of the Representation of the People Act. I therefore, dismiss the petition under section 103‑AA. The petitioner is, however, free to seek remedy by way of an election petition under section 52 of the Act, if so advised. Announced today. The parties be informed. AA./113/E Petition dismissed.