Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah for petitioner ; and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.D. Shukla as well as the learned standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing orders dated 11.12.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura dismissing Civil Revision No. 107 of 2002, between Smt. Maya and Smt. Krishna Devi and others ; preferred against the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, district Mathura allowing the election petition under section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and while setting aside the order declaring the result of election in favour of Smt. Maya, Smt. Krishna Devi, election petitioner was declared to be elected.
(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Maya was declared elected as Pradhan of Gram Sabha Chiksoli, Block Nandgaon, Pargana and Tahsil Chhata, district Mathura reserved for woman candidate in which only 1666 out of 2024 voters had exercised their franchise. Petitioner Smt. Maya was declared to have won by a margin of eight votes. Election Petition No. 8/6/4.2001-2002 was filed before Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Tahsil Chhata, District Mathura, on the ground that there were gross irregularities committed in counting of votes. In paragraphs 11 to 18 of the election petition, it was alleged that when the ballot box was brought, it was found to have contained ballot papers of the election of B.D.C., Zila Panchayat, instead of the votes cast for members/Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. It was further alleged that the husband of petitioner bribed the officers conducting the counting. It was further alleged that instead of preparing the bundles of 50 votes each, the bundles of 55 votes each were prepared in respect of petitioner's votes, whereas bundles 45 votes were prepared in respect of the votes of defendant No. 1. It was further alleged that about 15 votes were added in the bundles of defendant No. 1, and that a complaint was made to the Assistant Returning Officer upon which the counting was stopped for some time. The election officer, present there, scolded the officer-in-charge of the counting but they continued with the manipulations. There was electricity failure at the time of counting on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate left the place. Thereafter one Sri Ram Kishan, relative of defendant No. 1, who was one of the persons associated with counting, warned petitioner that he will not allow her to win the election. It was further alleged that taking advantage of the electricity failure, the votes cast in favour of election-petitioner, were rejected and she was declared to have lost the election by eight votes. In paragraph 18 of the election petition.;