BEGUM MAFIDA AHMED Vs. RAJENDRA NATH BARUA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal Under Section 110 -A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the Appellant contested as a candidate for the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Assam in the elections held in February, 1002. Shri Kajendra Nath Barua, Respondent No. 1 was also a contesting candidate. Another candidate was Shri Henchan -dra Saha, arrayed as Respondent No. 2 to this appeal. The Appellant stood on the Congress ticket while Respondent No. 1 was a P.S.P, candidate and the second Respondent, was an independent, candidate. The Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency comprises Of 9 Assembly Constituencies, 5 in jorhat. Subdivision and 4 in Golaghat Sub -division. Polling took place in the said constituency on (In 10th February 1902 and 21st February 1962. The counting of votes was done simultaneously at Jorhat and Golaghut on the 25th and 20th February. 1002. On the 27th February, 1002 the results were a, dared and Shri Kajendra Nath Barua Respondent No. I. was declared duly elected. The total number of electors In this constituency was 4,04,220, the votes polled were 1,96,268 and 10,653 votes were declared invalid. Shri Kajendra Nath Barua got 78,091 votes, while the Appellant got. 77,184 votes and Respondent . No. 2 got 30,340 votes. The Appellant tiled a petition challenging the election of the Respondent. The reliefs claimed were as follows:

(2.) A one -man Election Tribunal was constituted with the District Judge, Jorhat as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the petition was sent to him for disposal. By his order dated the 20Ui December, 1902 the Tribunal rejected the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/ - as costs to Respondent No. 1. it is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the Petitioner Appellant to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub -Division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency and held that the Appellant has failed to prove that the result of the election was materially affected by wrongful rejection of the votes polled in her favour and errors committed at the time of the counting.

(3.) THE 11th June 1962 the Respondent No. 2 Hem Chand Saba filed his written statement. In paragraph 2 of the written statement It in stated that sorting and counting of votes, as was learnt, went on simultaneously both at Golaghat and Jorhat both situated at the distance of 30 miles from each other and hence it was physically impossible for a candidate to make personal supervision of sorting and counting of votes as well as proper rejection or acceptance of votes of doubtful marking. In paragraph 4 it is stated that the Respondent No. 2 had the chance of supervising, sorting and counting of votes only for a few hours on the last clay of counting at Jorhat and he strongly felt that sorting and counting of votes was going on very hastily at 84 tables and it continued till midnight thereby exhausting energy and efficiency of all concerned and as such it was quite impossible to check If there was even any unintentional misplacing of properly marked votes in the packets of other rival candidates or the rejection or acceptance of votes of doubtful marking was done after observing the laid down procedure. In paragraph 5 he says that the large number of votes rejected In this Parliamentary Constituency amounted to 10,653 and It was not known whether all these rejected votes were duly checked by the Returning Officer to ensure Justice to both the candidates and the voters or the Presiding Officers and his assistants failed In their duties to give proper instructions to voters as regards marking these ballot papers meant for this Parliamentary Constituency. In paragraph 6 the supports the demand for the recounting of the votes in the Parliamentary constituency.