MAHENDRA PAL Vs. RAM DASS MALANGER
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on
March 01,2002
MAHENDRA PAL
Appellant
VERSUS
RAM DASS MALANGER
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
D.P. SHARMA V. COMMISSIONER AND RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. [REFERRED]R NARAYANAN VS. S SEMMALAI [REFERRED]
P K K SHAMSUDEEN VS. K A M MAPPILLAI MOHTNDEEN [REFERRED]
SATYANARAIN DUDHANI VS. UDAY KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED]
MAHENDRA PAL VS. RAM DASS MALANGER [REFERRED]
VADIVELU VS. SUNDARAM [REFERRED]
V S ACHUTHANANDAN VS. P J FRANCIS [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAJ KUMAR SAHI VS. VIBHA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-129] [REFERRED TO]SMT. SHAHBAZ BANO GRAM PRADHAN VS. SMT. SAHIBA BANO AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-257] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH JARYAL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
SIMANCHALDIGAL VS. GUNIN HAZARIKA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT NARAIN RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
Chadipiralla Narayana Reddy VS. Ponnapureddy Rama Subba Reddy [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
J RAGHAVA RAO VS. B CH GARATAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2002-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
BHEESHMA SHARMA VS. SAHAB SINGH CHAUHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA VS. UP. ZILADHIKARI (VIHIT PRADH1KARI) CHHATA (MATHURA) AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-301] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN SINGH VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-170] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA YADAV VS. SAROJA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
LAGUDU ANURADHA VS. GORREPOTU CHELLAYYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VEKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. DANISETTY BABU RAO [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
DALDAPAT BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-11-259] [REFERRED]
RAM ABHILAKH VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHINGA SHRAWASTI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2011-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
TELGA TULSIBAI VS. K SHAKUNTHALA [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
SADHNA VS. NIRMALA DEVI AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY VS. PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-124] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMACHANDRAN VS. E.V. VELU & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. ISHWAR DASS DHIMAN [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ALIAS CHITTIBABU VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-665] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLA RAM VS. SITAL DASS [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
JAHANARA BEGUM VS. LAYLA BEGUM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
BIRJHA BAI VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2007-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. UMA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
R.PANDIAMMAL VS. S.MUTHULAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
MANORAMA DOBRIYAL SHARMA VS. VINOD UNIYAL [LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VITTHAL CHOUDHARI VS. HARIBHAU MADHAV JAVLE [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KRISHNA SHETTY VS. DINAKAR KESHAV SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNEESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
KATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA VS. VEERAMALLA KOTESWARA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2009-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GANGU RAM MUSAFIR VS. SHRI SURESH KASHYAP AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
TANAJI RAMCHANDRA NIMHAN VS. SWATI VINAYAK NIMHAN [LAWS(SC)-2006-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. UMA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
MISHRILAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM VS. NEENA VIKRAM VERMA AND ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-272] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA KANT VS. A D J VARANASI AND 7 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-290] [REFERRED TO]
BHABANI PAKREY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
ELISETTY BHEEMANNA DORA S/O NARAYANA MURTHY VS. DISTRICT ELECTION AUTHORITY AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)This appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is filed against the final judgment and order dated 4-5-2001 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Election Petition No. 1 of 1998.
(2.)The election petition was filed by the appellant for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the appellant contested the election as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress while respondent No. 1 contested the election as candidate sponsored by the Bhartiya Janta Party. Appellant secured 11,657 votes and respondent No. 1 secured 11,660 votes. Therefore, respondent No. 1 was declared elected by a margin of three votes only. It was alleged that the said election result was vitiated because of improper reception of invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and improper rejection of valid votes in favour of appellant. It was also contended that many irregularities were committed during the course of counting which had materially affected the result of election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned. It was pointed out that total number of ballot papers which were shown to have been distributed were 35310, but after counting the votes, ballot papers as per Form 20-A were shown to be 35318, which indicated that eight votes which had been counted in excess had been illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate.
(3.)Firstly it is to be stated that election petition filed by the appellant was rejected on preliminary issue namely - election petition lacks in material facts and particulars and do not furnish a cause of action, as alleged. That order was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4085 of 1998 and this Court allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27-10-1999 reported as Mahendra Pal vs. Ram Dass Malanger and others (2000) 1 SCC 261, by holding that election petition did contain an adequate statement of material facts on which the allegations of irregularities and illegalities in counting were founded. The Court, therefore, directed the designated Judge to decide the election petition afresh on merits expeditiously.
(2.)The election petition was filed by the appellant for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the appellant contested the election as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress while respondent No. 1 contested the election as candidate sponsored by the Bhartiya Janta Party. Appellant secured 11,657 votes and respondent No. 1 secured 11,660 votes. Therefore, respondent No. 1 was declared elected by a margin of three votes only. It was alleged that the said election result was vitiated because of improper reception of invalid votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and improper rejection of valid votes in favour of appellant. It was also contended that many irregularities were committed during the course of counting which had materially affected the result of election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned. It was pointed out that total number of ballot papers which were shown to have been distributed were 35310, but after counting the votes, ballot papers as per Form 20-A were shown to be 35318, which indicated that eight votes which had been counted in excess had been illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate.
(3.)Firstly it is to be stated that election petition filed by the appellant was rejected on preliminary issue namely - election petition lacks in material facts and particulars and do not furnish a cause of action, as alleged. That order was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4085 of 1998 and this Court allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27-10-1999 reported as Mahendra Pal vs. Ram Dass Malanger and others (2000) 1 SCC 261, by holding that election petition did contain an adequate statement of material facts on which the allegations of irregularities and illegalities in counting were founded. The Court, therefore, directed the designated Judge to decide the election petition afresh on merits expeditiously.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.