- (1.) This election petition filed by Sri Sushil Singh In person before Registrar General of the Court of 6.2.2002 challenges the election of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav, for member of the Legislative Assembly, U.P. of constituency No. 221 Dhanapur, District Chandauli. The petitioner has prayed for declaring the election of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav-Respondent no. 1 as illegal; to conduct re-polling at Booth Nos. 291 and 292; to direct the respondents to recount the votes and to declare the petitioner as duly elected.
(2.) The averments in the election petition filed under Section 80 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 are that by a notification dated 26.12.2001 the elections of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly were declared. The programme of election included the beginning of nominations on 16.1.2002: close of nominations on 23.1.2002; scrutiny of nominations on 24.1.2002 and withdrawal of the nominations paper on 28.1.2002. The polling was fixed on 21.2.2001, and 24.2.2002 was fixed for counting and declaration of result. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and ground Nos. (b) and (e) of the election relevant fo r the purposes of this petition are quoted as below; "4. That it is relevant to mention here that on the day of polling the voters of the booth Nos. 291. & 292 namely Sisaura Kala reached to the booth to use their franchise but in collusion with the election officials the respondent No. 1 along with his goondas stopped the polling of the booth Nos. 291 & 292 though the voters requested the presiding officer of the booths to allow them to caste their votes, but the officer replies that they would not be allowed to cast the vote as they were going to cast their vote in the favour of B.S.P. Candidate. The petitioner himself condemn the policy of presiding officer and requested him for further polling who assured the petitioner but no carried the same. 5. That it is pertinent to mention here that after knowing the fact of repelling of the votes at booth Nos. 291 & 292 the petitioner contacted the High Officials and filed written complaint to the Chief Returning Officer Lucknow. U.P. A copy of the complaint was also sent to the Chief Election Commissioner, Government of India, New Delhi by the petitioner. The petitioner requested for repolling on the booths. 6. That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner along with other contacted the High Officials with request of re-polling at the booth 297 and 292 on 22.2.2002. They assures the petitioner that repolling will take place. 7. That it is pertinent to mention here that after not getting any response the petitioner again contacted and District Returning Officer on 23.2.2002. Then he was told that the Chief Election Commissioner has not granted permission to re-polling, he further told that nothing would be done after going the Chief Election Commission. 8. That it is relevant to mention here that though the application/complaint of the petitioner was pending' before the authority but the counting of the votes took place on 24.2.2002. Ground (b) Because corrupt practices has been committed by the winning candidate in collusion with the election officials stopping from casting their votes at booth Nos. 291 & 292. (c) Because the repolling was not allowed at booth Nos. 291 & 292 having 1460 valid vote of the Dalit Community at large, through the voters as well as the petitioner himself complaint for repolling."
(3.) The election petitioner alleges in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 that he was declared as winner by margin of 286 votes but on the request of Shri Prabhu Narayan Yadav-respondent no. 1, the declaration was stopped and re-totalling took place. After re-totalling the election petitioner was declared winner by margin of 135 votes. The petitioner sent fax messages and telephone calls and news papers published victory of the petitioner, On the direction of the District Returning Officer and in collusion with respondent no. 1, re-totalling took place for the third time and this time also the petitioner was declared winner by margin of 36 votes over respondent no. 1, but then the re-totalling was ordered for the fourth time, against which the petitioner sent written complaint to Chief Election Commissioner but without considering the objections of the petitioner, the District Returning Officer announced the result declaring respondent no. 1 to have won over the petitioner by a margin of 26 votes. This plea, however, was lateron given up and no issue was framed on the question of re-totalling of votes.;