NEELAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged a decision/letter dated 06.05.2021 issued by the opposite party no. 2, i.e., the State Election Commission and another order dated 08.05.2021 issued by the District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Amethi.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner contested the election for Member, Zila Panchayat for Ward No. 28, Amethi. The opposite party no. 6 herein also contested for the same office. The elections were held, votes were counted and as per the result, the petitioner had secured 3149 votes, whereas the opposite party no. 6 had secured only 3046 votes, therefore, a certificate of election was issued to the petitioner on 04.05.2021. On 04.05.2021 itself, before the petitioner could take oath, the opposite party no. 6 submitted a representation to the Assistant Returning Officer, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter affidavit of opposite party no. 6 stating that two booths bearing number 79 and 80 which were part of ward no. 28 and in which voting had taken place and the votes polled therein which had been counted were not included in Form-50 while calculating the number of votes polled by the respective candidates. It is said that at that time the opposite party no. 6 was not aware that the same error had been committed in respect to the votes polled and counted at booth nos. 120, 121, 134, 138 and 150 which were also part of ward no. 28 and that the votes polled and counted in respect to these booths were erroneously included in Form-50 of adjoining ward no. 29 of which they were not a part. Likewise Booth no. 100 which was part of ward no. 29, the votes polled and counted in respect thereof were included in Form no. 50 pertaining to ward no. 28, i.e., the ward of rival private parties herein. The Assistant Returning officer rejected the said application of the opposite party no. 6.

(3.) We have perused the order of the Assistant Returning Officer passed on the application of the petitioner. On a bare reading, it is apparent that the A.R.O./R.O., Amethi misread the application of the petitioner as if he was complaining about inclusion of Booth nos. 79 and 80 in ward no. 28 which in fact were part of ward no. 29, whereas, in fact, the opposite party no. 6 had submitted just the opposite in his application. After misreading it he opined that ward nos. 79 and 80 were part of ward no. 29 and that is how counting had been done, which was factually incorrect.