SAIKIA, J. - (1.) THIS election appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is from the judgment of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the respondent's Election Petition No.4 of 1985 allowing the petition and declaring the election of the appellant to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the 286 Chandan Kyari (S.C.) Constituency to be void.
(2.) PURSUANT to the Notification of Election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly, the Returning Officer of the 286 Chandan Kyari (S.C.) Assembly Constituency announced the following programme. JUDGEMENT_773_4_1989Html1.htm The appellant, the respondent and 17 others filed their nomination papers; and the Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers found valid at the scrutiny. Three of them withdrew their candidature, leaving 16 contesting candidates in the field. The Returning Officer prepared and published the following list of contesting candidates with the allotted symbols. JUDGEMENT_773_4_1989Html2.htm The poll was held according to schedule on 5-3-1985; and, after counting, the following result was announced on 6-3-1985 by the Returning Officer: JUDGEMENT_773_4_1989Html3.htm
(3.) THE appellant Lata Devi (Mali) was declared elected. THE respondent Haru Rajwar filed an election petition in the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) calling in question the election of the appellant to the Bihar Legislative Assembly on the ground, inter alia, that on 14-2-1985, he received a notice of the intention of the Returning Officer to change his allotted election symbol and though, through counsel, he objected on 15-12-1985, the Returning Officer re-allotted the respondent's 'bow and arrow' symbol to Murura Dasi and instead allotted the symbol of 'ladder' to him. It was urged in the petition that he contested and won the earlier election from the same constituency with the same 'bow and arrow' symbol; the sudden change of his symbol left him with less than 20 days time for campaign and it resulted in confusion amongst his supporters as a result of which his election was materially affected by the change; that the election was liable to be declared void on the ground of violation of S. 30(d) of the Representation of the People Act which, according to him, prescribed at least 20 days time for election campaign, which he did not have after change of the symbol; and that the election was void also for violation of Rule 10(5) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 under which, according to him, the election symbol could not be changed without permission of the Election Commission. It is the appellant's case that she did not receive any notice of the election petition against her. The trial proceeded ex parte. The respondent-election petitioner examined himself at the trial.;