HARADHAN PAL Vs. AMITABHA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. P. C. Sen, learned Counsel, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Counsel, Mr. P. K. Das, learned Counsel and Mr. Asok Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for various respondents and Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Special Officer, Mr. Gum Roy Chowdhury and Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the Special Officer, Mr. Bhabaranjan Sengupta.

(2.) It has not been disputed, and in fact it has also been found by the learned Trial Judge, that the ballot papers contain several errors or mistakes. The learned Judge is of the view that those errors or mistakes in the names or the surnames of the candidates are all "trial nature". We me afraid, and this we say with respect to the learned Judge, that we cannot agree. If the surname of a candidate being 'Bardhan' has been printed as 'Bhadra' or the surname 'Deb' has been printed as 'Dey', such errors or mistakes would be sufficient to mislead the electors who are all admittedly literate persons who would find no symbols in the ballot papers to go by.

(3.) The learned Judge, even though he branded the errors or mistakes to be 'trivial', has nevertheless had to hold that those require rectification and has, by the impugned order under appeal, directed the Joint Special Officers to insert or publish a notification in the form of a corrigendum in the 'Statesman' and the Bengali Daily 'Aajkal' notifying the errors that have crept in and the necessary rectifications. Such corrigendum appears to have been issued yesterday in the concerned Newspapers in pursuance of the impugned order of the learned Judge made the day before yesterday.