- (1.) The appellant, Jagjit Singh, has challenged the result of the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly at Charkhi Dadri Constituency. The polling took place on 20/5/1991. The results were declared on 17/6/1991. Dharam Pal Singh was declared elected having secured 20,918 votes as against 20,838 votes polled for Jagjit Singh, the appellant herein. Having lost by a narrow margin of 80 votes, Jagjit Singh presented an election petition in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging results declaredand demanding a re-count of votes cast. The controversy before the trial court has been summarised by the trial Judge in the following manner: "The case, as set out by the petitioner is that the counting arrangements were so made that no effective vigilance of the process of counting was possible, resulting in grave irregularities to his detriment like large-scale rejection of valid votes cast in his favour, many of his votes being rendered missing, besides virtual booth capturing of polling booth 15-A. One of the other respondent, namely, Gobind Ram Garg filed a return seeking to endorse the stand of the petitioner. The returned candidate, on his part, besides controverting the petitioner's averments, on merits and asserting that counting of votes had been fair and in accordance with the procedure prescribed, also took the preliminary objection that the petition disclosed no cause of action as there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') , inasmuch as there was no concise statement of material facts. Great stress was also laid upon the absence of a plea to the effect that the result of the returned candidate had been materially affected. A plea was also raised that after each round of counting the petitioner and all other contesting candidates had affixed their signatures on the prescribed pro forma, to denote that the counting in that round had been fair and valid and to the entire satisfaction of the candidates. It was thus the respondents' case that the petitioner merely sought a fishing and roving inquiry for collecting evidence, which was not permissible according to law. " The trial Judge also noted that the following preliminary issues were raised at the hearing: "(1 Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action, if not, what is its effect OPR. (2 Whether the pleadings of the election petition are frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and as such deserves to be struck out as envisaged under Order 6 Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code OPR. (3 Whether the election petition contains a concise statement of material facts as required under Section 83 (l) (a) of the Act and if not, what is its effect OPR. (4 Whether the election petition discloses any ground as envisaged under section 100 of the Act for declaring the election of the returned candidate as void and, if not, what is its effect OPR. (5 Whether the petitioner, after admitting the counting to be fair and to his satisfaction, is still competent to ask for re-count OPR. (6 Whether the petition contains material facts and particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of booth capturing and, if not, what is its effect OPR. (7 Whether the paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18 of the election petition disclose any cause of action and, if not, what is its effect OPR. (8 Whether the paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30 and 35 contain material facts and particulars which disclose a cause of action and, if not, what is its effect OPR. (9 Whether the paragraphs 26, 27 and 31 disclose material facts and particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of booth capturing pertaining to booth 15-A and, if not, what is its effect OPR. (10 Whether the written statement is not properly verified, if so, its effect - No arguments were advanced on Issue 10 and consequently the issue was decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.
(2.) Issues 6 and 9 pertain to corrupt practice of booth capturing. The advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, specifically stated that those two issues were not being pressed on the ground of booth capturing. But, it was stated that had there been proper polling at Booth No. 15-A, the result of the election would have been different. As regards Issue 5 the trial Judge has observed that it deserves to be taken up with the other issues on merit. Issues I to 4, 7 and 8 were taken up together and were decided against the appellant and in favour of the returned candidate.
(3.) The grievance of the appellant is that after framing of the issues, the designated Judge of the High court ordered on 17/9/1991 that a list of witnesses be presented within a week and the evidence of the appellant was to be adduced on and from 21/10/1991. The appellant, accordingly, prepared an application along with the list of witnesses. But, the Designated Judge without recording any evidence took up the case for hearing on 21/10/1991. The judgment was reserved and after a period of three months on 21/1/1992 this judgment under appeal was passed.;