- (1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2. This petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Election Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in Election Petition No. 129/2010 rejecting the applications Paper No. 64C, 65C and 66C filed by the petitioner, to summon the witnesses. The petitioner was elected as Member of Zila Panchayat, Varanasi from Area No. 5-Pindara-01 (also known as Ward No. Sector No. 1), district Varanasi. The petitioner polled 4948 votes whereas the respondent No. 2 polled 4263 votes. The difference of votes between the two was 685 votes. The respondent No. 2 instituted an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds, one of them relating to irregularities in recording of votes while preparing the result sheet. The certified copies of the result sheets were filed. Further the election petitioner (respondent No. 2) got summoned Assistant District Election Officer Sri Raja Ram Verma to verify about the issuance of the certified copy of the result sheets. After deposition of Sri Raja Ram Verma, the Assistant District Election Officer, the petitioner who was the returned candidate and defendant No. 3 in the election petition, filed three applications numbered as Paper Nos. 64C, 65C and 66C to summon the Counting Supervisors of the Polling Centres 271, 273, 76 and 67 to make an effort to establish that there has been cutting and overwriting in the result sheets after they had been prepared by the Counting Supervisors. Primarily the case of the petitioner (the returned candidate) was that subsequent to the summoning of the records the result sheets have been tempered with. The applications have been rejected by the Election Tribunal by the impugned order, on the ground that once Superior Officer, Sri Raja Ram Verma who was the Assistant District Election Officer had been produced and he had proved with regard to the genuineness of the certified copy being true copies of the original there was no necessity to summon the Counting Supervisors who were subordinate officers.
(2.) The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the ground taken by the Election Tribunal rejecting the applications is untenable in law. According to Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner the Election Tribunal misconstrued the reasoning given by the Counting Supervisors. According to the contents of the applications, once there were allegations that after preparation of the result sheets the same have been tempered with, that can be best testified by Counting Supervisors who have prepared the result sheets and it was not the case where the petitioner was summoning the Counting Supervisors to establish that the result sheets as they exist and had been filed by the election petitioner, respondent No. 2 were correct or not. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nayini Narasimiha Reddy v. Dr. K. Laxman and others, 2006 AIR(SC) 2050 for the purpose that it is not for the Election Tribunal to judge as to what the witness could depose if summoned but the Court must exercise caution before summoning the witness.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the only effort of the petitioner is to delay the conclusion of the election petition so that the term may expire and election petition may lose its efficacy. Having considered the submissions, I find that the election Tribunal erred in rejecting the applications of the petitioner for summoning the Counting Supervisors proceeding on wrong premise. The reason given for summoning the witnesses was misconstrued as it had nothing to do with the genuineness of the issuance of the certified copies from the original but it related to genuineness of the original documents, which could be best testified by the Counting Supervisors who had prepared the result sheets. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby quashed. The Tribunal will issue necessary summons for summoning the witnesses. It is however made clear that the petitioner would not cause any unnecessary delay in disposal of the election petition and would extend all co-operation in early disposal of the Election Petition. The Election Tribunal will also make an endeavour to conclude and decide the Election Petition expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.;