Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) A. No. 7947 of 2017 filed on 30.10.2017 in E.P. No. 08 of 2015 under the provision of Section 86 (7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for seeking compliance of the interim order dated 03.02.2017 passed in Election Petition on behalf of the petitioner Roshan Lal Choudhary was pressed.
(2.) The matter was heard on 18.06.2018.
(3.) In the petition, it has been averred by the petitioner as follows :- (i) That the present Interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking compliance of the interim order dated 03.02.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the connected Election Petition, whereby and whereunder this Hon'ble Court has directed the Returning Officer to hold the inspection of record and submit a report on affidavit giving exact number of persons as may be found to have entered twice in the electoral roll as also the exact number of persons, if any, as may be found to have voted twice. (ii) That the petitioner has challenged the Election of the Respondent No. 1 Nirmala Devi as Member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from 22, Barkagaon Assembly Constituency and this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to call for records and frame issued in relation to casting of double votes by thousands of voters and supporters of the returned candidate. (iii) That though, the Returning Officer was not party originally in the Election Petition but she herself applied to the added as party and inspite of the objection of the election petitioner, she was added as party to the Election petition and thereafter she has filed her written statement. (iv) That thereafter, on permission from this Hon'ble Court, the election petitioner has inspected the records and has discovered in presence of counsels of Returning Officer and Elected Candidate that there had been large number of voters who had casted their votes twice or thrice within the same booth or at different booth, materially affecting the result where the margin of difference of votes in between the election petitioner and the returned candidate had been only 411. The election petitioner has disclosed and brought on record the list such voters who had voted twice by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1188/2016. (v) That it is very relevant to state and submit here that the returning officer in her written statement at paragraph-44 and 45 has also admitted of 171 number of voters to have voted twice. Furthermore, the Returning Officer while verifying the assertions and the details of double voters as enumerated in I.A. No. 1188 of 2016 has admitted that a total of 101 numbers of voters have casted their votes twice in the same booth, 36 numbers of voters have casted their votes twice in two different booths and 4 numbers of voters have casted their votes thrice, admitting that some 101x2+36x2+4x3=286 numbers of votes to be void which if added to the admitted position of 171x2 = 342 makes it 286+342=628 numbers of void votes as per provisions of section 62 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (vi) That it is submitted that taking into account the large scale irregularity in the voters list and casting double votes by the supporters of the returned candidate, this Hon'ble Court before accepting the statement of the petitioner and failure of the Returning Officer and the Returned Candidate to answer the specific interrogatories of the petitioner, in the interest of justice directed the respondent Returning Officer vide order dated 03.02.2017 to hold the inspection of record and submit a report on affidavit giving exact number of persons as may be found to have entered twice in the electoral roll as also the exact number of persons, if any, as may be found to have voted twice. (vii) That in compliance and furtherance to the order dated 03.02.2017, inspection of records was carried out by Returning Officer in presence of the counsels on 14th, 15th and 16th of February, 2017, however, the total number of casted double votes detailed in I.A. No. 1188/2016 was not verified fully and hence, an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1961/2017 was filed on behalf of Returning Officer for further inspection, which has been allowed in terms of order dated 10.03.2017 and further inspection directed to be held on 3rd 4th and 6th April and thereafter, the report of the Returning Officer, was filed admitting further of 141 numbers of double votes and 4 numbers of triple votes being casted in the election to 22 Barkagaon Assembly Constituency. (viii) That it is submitted that the reply of the Returning Officer has not been in accordance with the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court and there has been material suppression and concealment with respect to double votes, the election petition has filed its reply to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Returning Officer and has brought on record names of as many as 7864 numbers of voters having same electoral roll but their name entered at two different booths and some 5816 numbers of voters having same name, parentage, photograph etc. having their names figuring at two different booths. (ix) That it is submitted that after the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court has been acted upon and partly complied with by the Returning Officer, the returned candidate had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide S.L.P (Civil) No. 14417/2017 challenging the interim order dated 03.02.2017 alongwith prayer for interim relief in the nature of stay of the Election Petition No. 8 of 2015. (x) That it is submitted that the matter of Special Leave to Appeal was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.05.2017 and upon hearing the counsel it was directed to be listed after summer vacation, whereupon it was again listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.08.2017 and leave was granted. (xi) That it is submitted that although there had been a prayer for stay on the instant election proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but no interim order in the nature of stay been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (xii) That it is submitted that section 86(7) of the Representation of The People Act, 1950 provides for expeditious trial of the election petition and in view of there being no stay of the proceeding in appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and also because order dated 03.02.2017 has been partly complied, this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent Returning Officer to submit its complete report in terms of order dated 03.02.2017. ;