Skip to content


Dr. K. Annadani Vs. P.M. Narendraswamy and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberElection Petition No. 5 of 2013
Judge
AppellantDr. K. Annadani
RespondentP.M. Narendraswamy and Others
Excerpt:
(a)representation of people act 1951 election of assembly constituency nomination election petition filed by petitioner under section 81 of the act, challenging election of respondent to assembly constituency in election petitioner further prayed to set aside election of respondent and to declare petitioner as duly elected to assembly constituency whether petitioner proved that respondent was not a member of indian national congress on date of filing of his nomination or suspension of respondent from indian national congress was withdrawn prior to the filing of his nomination paper court held once it is specific case of petitioner that respondent is expelled, it is his burden to place materials facts raised by petitioner must be proved at first instance and facts if it is.....(prayer: this election petition is filed under section 81 of the representation of people act 1951, by one dr. k. annadani, petitioner: candidate along with his counsel sri a v nishanth, challenging the election of the respondent no.1 sri p.m. narendraswamy to the karnataka legislature from no.186, malavalli legislative assembly constituency, general elections held in the year 2013, praying to:- a) call for records; b) order for recount; c) set aside the election of the first respondent to the 14th karnataka legislative assembly from 186-malavalli assembly constituency; d) declare petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat of karnataka legislative assembly from 186-malavalli assembly constituency; e) pass such other order/s as this hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Election Petition is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act 1951, by one Dr. K. Annadani, Petitioner: Candidate along with his Counsel Sri A V Nishanth, challenging the Election of the Respondent No.1 Sri P.M. Narendraswamy to the Karnataka Legislature from No.186, Malavalli Legislative Assembly Constituency, General Elections held in the Year 2013, praying to:-

A) Call for Records; B) Order for Recount; C) Set aside the Election of the First Respondent to the 14th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 186-Malavalli Assembly Constituency; D) Declare Petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 186-Malavalli Assembly Constituency; E) Pass such other Order/S as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and Circumstances of thee case, in the Interest of Justice.)

1. This Election Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the first respondent to 186-Malavalli Assembly Constituency in the election held on 5.5.2013 and counting of votes was taken on 8.5.2013. It is the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the election of the first respondent and to declare the petitioner as duly elected to the said Assembly Constituency.

2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that the petitioner was sponsored by Janatha Dal (Secular) Party (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the JD(S)') and first respondent was sponsored by Indian National Congress Party (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the INC'). The first respondent was a member of Indian National Congress for more than 2 decades and he had sought for party ticket in the elections to the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly in 2008. However, he was not sponsored by the said party. Sri Y S Siddaraju was sponsored as the INC candidate. Sri Y S Siddaraju made a complaint to the President of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee ('KPCC' for short) requesting for expulsion of first respondent from INC as he contested against the official INC candidate and also Malavalli Block Congress Committee. The KPCC expelled the first respondent from INC for a period of six years from 2008. It was in vogue till April, 2014. Without enrolling himself, the first respondent declared as the member of INC and a candidate sponsored by INC. The president of the KPCC has not withdrawn the expulsion order passed in the year 2008. The first respondent claimed to have been set up by INC in the nomination paper. He also filed `A' and `B' Forms issued by INC signed by AICC General Secretary and President, KPCC. Note 3 of the `B' Form states "it is certified that each of the candidates whose name is mentioned above is a member of this political party and his name is duly borne on the rolls of members of this party'.

3. Paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 prescribes certain conditions that a candidate is a member of the political party who claims that he is set up by a political party under sub-paragraph (aa) which has to be stated in prescribed `B' Forms. Therefore, the statement contained in clause 3 of the `B' Forms is a false statement/certificate issued by the authorized person by the political party under which the first respondent had contested as a party candidate.

4. The first respondent who was an independent MLA has not resigned as Member of the 13th Legislative Assembly from his constituency, and therefore, he continued to be an independent MLA till dissolution of house on 15.5.2013 and he had also not joined INC and enrolled himself as member of the said party by paying required membership fee as per Party Constitution as on the date of filing of his nomination and also on the date of last day for filing of nomination. Therefore, the certificate issued by the President of KPCC is false and cannot be accepted. The nomination paper filed by the first respondent subscribed by only one proposer is not valid in law in terms of Section 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the nomination of the first respondent was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.

5. The first respondent in 2008 elections had secured about 45,288 votes as an independent candidate and was elected. Similarly in 2013 elections, majority of the members of INC party (at least 4000) would have voted in favour of the first respondent since he was nominated as party candidate. About 21000 voters of the Constituency have voted in favour of the first respondent taking into consideration of symbol on which the first respondent contested in view of about 10% of the electorates being illiterate voters. Therefore, the election result has been materially affected by 25000 votes cast in favour of first respondent and first respondent has won by a narrow margin of 538 votes. There is improper acceptance of nomination since it is not subscribed by 10 electors as required under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, the election of the first respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100(d)(i) and 100(d)(iv) of the Act.

6. The counting of votes was in two small halls in which 15 tables were arranged. In the first hall of the Returning Officer, 7 tables were arranged and in the second hall, 8 tables were arranged which was supervised by the Assistant Returning Officer, who is the Tahasildar of Malavalli Taluk of Mandya District. Table Nos.8 to 15 (eight tables) were arranged in the hall and supervised by the latter. Each counting table had a Counting Supervisor, two Counting Assistants and other assisting staff for the purpose of counting of votes. The petitioner was leading in all the rounds up to sixteenth round of counting. At that stage, the Returning Officer started receiving calls and to answer the same, he used to go to a private room, adjacent to the counting hall. He was not in a mood to answer the queries put-forth by the petitioner and his counting agents. There was no display of votes from the twelfth round onwards on the black board. There were eighteen rounds in counting of election votes in question. There was no display of votes secured by the candidates either on the black board, screen or through the public address system after the commencement of the thirteenth round.

7. According to the agents of the election petitioner as well as other candidates, the petitioner had won the election by a comfortable margin of 1830 votes. Victory celebrations took place immediately after the News channels flashed the news that the petitioner herein had won. However, the results were not declared. There was no announcement of votes polled after twelfth round. The petitioner and his counting agents found that there was foul play in the counting process particularly from thirteenth round onwards and started objecting orally as to why there was the delay in declaration of results. However, the Returning Officer was busy on his mobile phone.

8. Suddenly at 2.30 p.m. the first respondent was declared to have been elected as he had secured 538 votes more than the petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor his counting agents were given any opportunity to raise objections regarding counting of votes particularly from thirteenth round onwards. The petitioner and his counting agents were not made known the votes entered in Form No.20. There was only a declaration of results of the election. Announcement of votes secured by each of the candidates was not done as provided under Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules'). The entries made in Form No.17C Part II and Form No.20 after round No.12 was neither announced nor shown either to the petitioner or to his counting agents solely with an intention to favour the first respondent.

9. Counting of postal ballots was in contravention of Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961. Several valid postal ballots were rejected which were about 50 in number, which was in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for copies of Form No.17C Part 1 and Part 2 after declaration of results to verify the number of votes polled and also the number of votes displayed in the Electronic Voting Machines ('EVMs' for short) at the time of counting and also for authentication of counting agents of the petitioner by affixing their signatures, which was not furnished on the ground that documents were kept in the strong room.

10. The election agent Sri Kambaraju had maintained in his own handwriting about votes secured by both the petitioner and the first respondent and the total number of votes found in the EVM's in each of the 15 tables. Discrepancies, as noted by the election agent and the officials figured in 7 Polling Station, in which the petitioner had secured more votes than the first respondent. The petitioner had secured 538 votes more than what is reflected in the result sheet. The petitioner had secured 61,869 votes and first respondent had secured 61,371 votes. Thus the result of the election has materially affected in view of wrong entries/manipulation in the second room containing Table 8 to 15 which was supervised by the Assistant Returning Officer.

11. The petitioner made representation for re-tabulation at 1.45 p.m. to the Returning Officer. The petitioner also made representation for furnishing of certain documents required for the purpose of verification and challenging the election of Respondent No.1. The petitioner made representation to provide various information, but the same were not furnished to him. Thus the petitioner has filed the present election petition.

12. The first respondent filed written statement denying the various averments made in the election petition. The election petition is contrary to provisions of Section 83(b) of the Act in not furnishing the full particulars of corrupt practice. The Affidavit in Form No.25 as contemplated under Rule 94-A of the Rules was not complied with. The pleadings in the election petition are either vague, bald or are bereft of material facts and particulars. The expulsion of the first respondent was withdrawn and the respondent herein was the member of INC for which reason the respondent was given nomination paper and Form `A' and `B' to contest the election. The first respondent has been set up by the INC in the nomination papers and along with it he has filed A and B Forms issued by INC signed by AICC General Secretary and KPCC President. On the day of filing nomination first respondent was the member of Indian National Congress. The question of issuance of false statement or certificate by the authorized person by a political party is not correct.

13. The petitioner on the one hand states that until sixteenth round he was leading and on the other hand he states that after twelfth round there was no display of results on the black board.

14. The first respondent has stated that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing the above petition. There is no truth in any of the statement imputing allegations against the respondent and in process of conduct of election and counting of votes. The petitioner is making reckless allegations without any verification of truth and correct facts in a mechanical manner. There is no infraction of any of the provisions of the Act, Rules or direction issued by the Election Commission. The election was conducted in accordance with law and petitioner has not made out any cause of action, much less for setting aside the election of this respondent and for a fresh poll. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the election petition.

15. The following issues were framed.

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the 1st respondent is not a member of the Indian National Congress as on the date of filing of his nomination to contest the election from No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency, Karnataka?

(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the 1st respondent by the Returning Officer as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress is illegal and improper and the same has materially affected the result of the election to No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency?

(iii) Whether the petitioner proves that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the 1sat respondent by the Returning Officer is improper and illegal and the same is void and has materially affected the result of election to No.186, Malavalli Constituency?

(iv) Whether the petitioner proves that there was illegality and irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers in contravention of the conduct of Election Rules and Representation of Peoples Act etc., and has materially affected the result of the election?

(v) Whether the petitioner proves that he secured more number of valid votes i.e., 61,869 votes, than the votes secured by the 1sat respondent i.e., 61,637 votes, as alleged in para No.22 of the Election Petition, so that the petitioner himself be entitled for declaration at the hands of this Court to fill the seat of No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency?

(vi) Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside for improper reception of valid votes by undue influence of the Returning Officer in favour of the 1st respondent in counting of votes in contravention of the conduct of Election Rules and Representation of the People Act, etc.,?

(vii) Whether the petitioner proves that the petitioner secured more number of valid votes than the returned candidate - Respondent No.1, so that the petitioner himself be entitled for declaration at the hands of this Hon'ble Court as the returned candidate to fill the seat of No.186, Malvalli Assembly Constituency?

(viii) Whether the 1st respondent proves that the suspension of 1st respondent from the Indian National Congress has been withdrawn prior to the filing of his nomination paper to contest the election from No.186, Malvalli Assembly Constituency?

(ix) Whether recounting is necessitated and what order?

16. In order to prove case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and 18 other witnesses as PW-2 to PW-19 and got marked Ex.P1 to P148 and closed his side. PW-2 Sri Kambaraju is the election agent of the petitioner. PW-3 to PW-14 are the counting agents for the petitioner. PW- 15 is the news reporter of Public T.V. and PW-16 is the news Editor of Prajavani newspaper. PW-17 is the Returning Officer. PW-18 is the office Secretary of KPCC. PW-19 Sri Y S Siddaraju, is an advocate and social worker. The first respondent himself was examined as RW-1 and one more witness Sri Boseraju and got marked Ex.R1 to R82.

17. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1; and the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

18. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent was not the Member of INC. He was expelled from the party on the basis of the complaint letter-Exhibit P4. Respondent No.1 himself has admitted the fact of his expulsion from Party, but, it is contended by the respondent No.1 that expulsion was withdrawn and he was the Member of INC as on the date of filing nomination. Respondent No.1 having admitted expulsion, has not produced any material to show that he was on the roll of Members of INC as on the date of filing nomination. The petitioner has examined PW.19- Mr. Siddaraju, who has admitted his signature on the complaint letter. He has also produced news articles appeared in the newspapers which are marked as Exhibits P34 to P36. He has also examined PW.16 news Editor in this regard which conclusively prove the fact that the first respondent was expelled and was not on the roll of Members of INC as on the date of filing nomination. Therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have been proposed by ten voters and not by one voter as prescribed in Section 33 of the Act. If the first respondent was not accepted of his nomination, the petitioner would have been voted and thus the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent has materially affected the result of the election. It is further submitted that Thirteenth Legislative Assembly of Karnataka came to be dissolved on 21st May 2013. There is no document to show that the first respondent had resigned from being a Member of the Assembly of the Thirteenth Legislative Assembly before the term comes to an end and without resigning it is impossible to join a political party. It is impractical for the Court to consider the fact that the first respondent joined the INC when he was a sitting member. It is submitted, petitioner made efforts to secure information regarding the expulsion order. However, one political party will not get the information of the other political party but still the Office Secretary of the KPCC has clearly stated that he was working in the office for the past 28 years as the Office Secretary and he is not a Party President. It is submitted that just issuance of Form A and B does not prove that the first respondent was the Member of a political party. The first respondent though has produced Exhibit R81 the acknowledgement, the author of the said document has not been examined. Therefore, Exhibit R81 is a created document and cannot be looked into. It is submitted that therefore this Court has to take that the expulsion order was passed in view of the petitioner producing Press statements wherein the Reporter of 'Public TV' and the news editor of Prajavani is not cross-examined. That, Sri Siddaraju the witness who is a Congress Party Member, himself has deposed that the first respondent was expelled for a period of six years. It is also submitted that there is an illegality and irregularity in the process of counting of votes. The respondent has not objected marking of tabulation prepared by the election agent which prove that the petitioner has secured more number of votes than the first respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that it is a case where the election of the first respondent has to be set aside and the petitioner has to be declared as elected.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH ROUT v. RAVINDRA NATH ROUT reported in (2012)1 SCC 762 page 39 to 41, 47 and 48; and in the case of KRISHNA MOHINI v. MOHINDER NATH SOFAT reported in (2000)1 SCC 145 paragraph 34 to advance the contention that mere issuance of Form-B will not satisfy that he is a member of that political party unless it is shown that his name continued to be on the membership roll and that all the conditions of paragraph 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 have to be satisfied. Further, the learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. reported in (1976)3 SCC 32 and placed reliance on paragraph 12, in the case of TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2015)7 SCC 178 and referred to paragraph 27 to advance the contention that if the party to the proceeding withholds the best document or witness, then adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of L C HANUMANTHAPPA v. H.D. SHIVAKUMAR reported in (2016) 1 SCC 322 and referred to paragraph 24 and 25 to advance the contention "doctrine of relation back" as to how he could not amend the election petition after coming to know of the irregularities in the conduct of election after the documents are handed over to the petitioner. Relying upon Section 56, 57 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the judgments in the case of BALWAN SINGH v. LAKSHMI NARAIN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1960 SC 770 paragraph 10, learned counsel submitted that if the documents are marked without objection in spite of there being no plea in the petition, Court can take judicial notice of the same.

20. It is submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the contention that first respondent cannot become the member of INC being an independent candidate and the same will lead to disqualification under Tenth Schedule is highly erroneous and misleading. The question relating to disqualification under Tenth Schedule has to be decided by the Speaker, which is final, subject to judicial review. However, such an issue cannot be a subject matter for consideration in an election petition. Further, the power of the Speaker to disqualify a Member under the Anti- defection laws cannot travel beyond the tenure of the Assembly of which he was the Speaker. Therefore, the Speaker cannot disqualify, even assuming for the sake of argument, the first respondent from contesting in the next election. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out any ground to show that the nomination paper of the first respondent has been wrongly accepted.

21. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner being a member of rival political party cannot question the Membership of the respondent in the INC in an election petition. Anybody can become a Member of the INC by paying requisite membership fee as per the bye-laws and membership is an internal matter of the INC. Membership is inter se between INC and its Members and third party, that too a rival political party, cannot question the membership of the respondent. It is the congress party that nominated the returned candidate as its candidate on its party symbol and therefore, whether the returned candidate is an independent candidate and would have become member of that political party as per their bye-laws or vice-versa or not is not of any significance. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out any ground to show that the nomination paper has been wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer. None of the provisions enumerated in Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191 of the Constitution of India are violated. Neither Section 33 nor 34 of the Act was violated. Petitioner has based expulsion of the first respondent on the basis of newspaper report, petitioner's self-serving statement and Xerox copy of the complaint given by one Siddaraju. None of the above documents are admissible in evidence. In this regard, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on QAMARUL ISLAM v. S.K. KANTHA reported in 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 5 and submitted that fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and thereby inadmissible in evidence in the absence of maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The sayings and doings of third person are, as a rule, irrelevant, so that no proof of them can be admitted. Every act done or spoken which is relevant on any ground must be proved by someone who see it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears. To fortify the said submission, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of LAXMI RAJ SHETTY and ANR. Vs., STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1988) 3 SCC 319 Para-26.

22. Learned senior counsel has contended that photocopy of the document in the absence of original is not admissible and in this regard he relied upon the judgment in the case of RAM SURSH SINGH vs., PRABHAT SINGH reported in (2009) 6 SCC 681. Petitioner has failed to produce expulsion order and has failed to adduce any evidence to show that result of the election has been materially affected due to the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent. It is further contended that decision in the election petition can be given only on the positive and affirmative evidence and not merely on speculation and suspicion, however strong they are. In this regard the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case of RAM SURESH SINGH vs., PRABHAT SINGH (2009)6 SCC 681. The petitioner was fully aware of the fact that expulsion of the respondent was withdrawn and respondent was the member of INC for which reason the respondent was given nomination paper and Form A and B to contest the election and therefore, there was no clear and unambiguous statement made by the respondent No.1 in his written statement regarding expulsion, the respondent only negated the contention of the petitioner and the same cannot be taken as unequivocal admission by the respondent and it was further explained in the evidence. Thus it does not discharge the petitioner from the burden cast on him to prove that the petitioner was not the member of the INC. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of JEEVAN DIESELS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. JASBIR SINGH CHADDA AND (HUF) ANOTHER reported in 2010(6) SCC 601; and in the case of (2012)5 SCC 634 JOSHNA GOUDA v. BRUNDABAN GOUDA AND ANOTHER to contend that the judgment cannot be signed upon admission in a pleading or an affidavit unless the admissions were clear and unequivocal. It is submitted a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but in a given case, it may be explained or clarified it may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Petitioner sought to lead evidence on the discrepancies in Form 17-A and 17-B, without there being any foundation in pleadings. Evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor such evidence can be taken into consideration. In this regard, learned senior counsel placed reliance on KATTI NAKKULA MURALI KRISHNA v. VEERAMALLA KOTESHWAR RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2010)1 SCC 466. Lastly, it is contended that in matters of election, will of the people must prevail and courts would be understandably extremely slow to set at naught will of the people truly and freely exercised; otherwise the courts would be pitting their will against the will of the people. In this regard, decision in the case of AZHAR HUSSAIN v. RAJIV GANDHI reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253 is relied upon.

23. After hearing the rival contention of the parties, now let me consider the issues framed in the case. Issues No.1 to 3 and 8:

24. These issues are taken together as they are interlinked in order to avoid repetition. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the first respondent was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination, and therefore, in accordance with Section 33 of the Act there should have been ten proposers, and therefore, the election is to be set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

25. PW1 has deposed to the petition averments in his chief examination. In the cross-examination, PW1 has stated, as follows:

"it is true that I do not have personal knowledge of anybody becoming member of Indian National Congress Party since 1999. It is true that I came to know about the expulsion of respondent NO.1 from Congress Party in 2008 through paper. It is true that I do not have personal knowledge about respondent No.1 having membership in INC for 20 years prior to 2008. He volunteers that he knew through media. I am is not aware of taking permission from the Party other than INC for admitting to membership of INC. It is true that there is declaration in the B Form to the effect that the petitioner is a member of JD(S) Party."

26. PW.19 is Shri Y.S. Siddaraju is a member of INC Party. He has stated in the evidence as follows:

"I contested once for the Legislative Assembly Elections for the year 2008 from Malavalli Constituency. I know respondent No.1. It is true that he contested along with me and he contested as a rebel candidate for Congress. It is true that he had given complaint for respondent having contested as rebel candidate to Congress. I see Exhibit P4. I have learnt that Party has dismissed him from Membership. He has stated in the cross-examination that I have not been given any membership certificate. Disciplinary Committee and Party President have taken action. I have not attended the proceedings. I have not been communicated the action taken by the Committee.

27. The first respondent has been examined as RW-1. It is elicited from the mouth of RW-1 that he had not received any orders for having expelled by the party. He was permitted to continue as a Congress Member by the then KPCC President. The suggestion that he was expelled for a period of 6 years from 2008 has been denied by this RW-1. The suggestion that election statutory forms were kept in strong room at his instance is denied. It is admitted that he has taken certified copy of Form 17-A, 17-C Part I and II on the order passed by this Court. The suggestion that entries made in Form No.20, 17-A, 17-C Part-I and II are false is denied by RW-1.

28. In order to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner has relied upon the evidence of himself-PW.1, PW.19 Mr. Siddaraju, and exhibit P4 the letter, and reports published in the newspapers marked as Exhibit P34, P35 and P36 on 27th March 2015; and the evidence of PW.16 who is news editor of Prajavani news paper to show that first respondent was expelled from the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee. Whereas, it is the contention of the first respondent that the expulsion was withdrawn and by issuance of nomination and Form A and B it is deemed that he was/is the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination. The petitioner has failed to produce the order issued by the competent person expelling the first respondent from the Party. Based on newspaper reports, Xerox copy of the letter issued by PW.19 Siddaraju, evidence of PW-16 and the self-serving statement of Petitioner in place of nomination paper and Form A and B issued to the first respondent, it cannot be said that the first respondent was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination. PW-19 has admitted in his cross- examination that as a member he has not been issued with membership certificate.

29. Further, membership in a co-operative society only brings about a contractual relationship among the members forming it subject to the Act and the Rules. Therefore, membership is inter se between INC and its members, a third party, that too, a rival political party cannot question the membership of the respondent to the INC is the contention of the first respondent. In this regard, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ZOROASTRIAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER v. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (URBAN) AND OTHERS reported in (2005)5 SCC 632 and contended that internal matter of a political party cannot be questioned by a third party in an election petition. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"Membership in a co-operative society only brings about a contractual relationship among the members forming it subject of course to the Act and the Rules. One becomes a member in a co-operative society either at the time of its formation or acquires membership in it on possessing the requisite qualification under the bye-laws of the society and on being accepted as a member. It is not as if one has a fundamental right to become a member of a co-operative society. But certainly, if the application of one for membership, who is otherwise qualified to be a member under the Act, Rules and the bye-laws of the society, is rejected unreasonably or for frivolous reasons, the person may be entitled to enforce his claim to become a member in an appropriate forum or court of law. This is the effect of the decision in Jain Merchants Co-operative Housing Society vs. HUF of Manubhai (1995 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 19) relied on by the High Court. The said decision does not lay down a proposition, nor can it lay down a proposition, that even a person who does not qualify to be a member in terms of the bye-laws of a society can enforce a right to become a member of that society. It is one thing to say that it is not desirable to restrict membership in a society based solely on religion or sex but it is quite different thing to say that any such voluntary approved bye-law containing such a restriction could be ignored or declared unconstitutional by an authority or a tribunal created under the Act itself. Normally, the bye-laws of a society do not have the status of a statute and as held by this Court in Co- operative Central Credit Bank Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (AIR 1970 SC 245) bye-laws are only the rules which governs the internal management or administration of a society and they are of the nature of articles of association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them but they do not have the force of a statute."

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect has submitted that mere issuance of Form A and B is not the proof of a party being member of a political party and that party, in addition to issuance of Form A and B, has to prove that he was the member on the Rolls of that political Party. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESH ROUT (supra) and placed reliance on paragraphs 39 to 41, 47 and 48. The same are extracted below:

"39. The 1968 Order has been made by the Commission to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols of elections in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies for the registered political parties (recognised or unrecognised) and the independent candidates. Para 13 provides in unmistakable terms that for a candidate to be considered to have been set up by a political party in a parliamentary or assembly constituency, he has to comply with the conditions set out in clauses (a) to (e) thereof.

40. In Krishna Mohini this Court held that: (SCC p.160, para 34)

'34. ...In order to be a candidate set up by a registered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being proposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 13 of 1968 Order must be satisfied.

The Court went on to say that if any one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of nomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him.

41. Clause (e) of para 13 of the 1968 Order is equally important. It reads, "Forms A and B are signed, in ink only, by the said office-bearer or person authorised by the party". Proviso appended to para 13 makes a provision that no facsimile signature or signature by means of rubber stamp, etc. of any such office-bearer or authorised person shall be accepted and no form transmitted by fax shall be accepted. In other words, for a candidate, proposed by a single elector alone, to be treated as a candidate set up by a recognised political party, the filing of notice and communication in Forms A and B referable to clauses (b), (c) and (d) and in accord with clause (e) of para 13 of the 1968 Order is essential and on its non-compliance, the nomination of such candidate is liable to be rejected."

31. Further, he places reliance on the judgment in the case of KRISHNA MOHINI (supra) and refers to paragraph 34 of the judgment. The same is extracted here below:

"The distinction between nomination filed by a candidate set up by a recognised political party and a candidate not set up by a recognised political party is precise. A perusal of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act makes it clear that a candidate not set up by a recognised political party, meaning thereby a candidate set up by an unrecognised political party or an independent candidate, in order to be duly nominated for election must have his nomination paper subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the Constituency. If such nomination paper be subscribed by only one elector as proposer or by a number of electors less then ten, then it will amount to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33. A candidate, who is merely a substitute or a cover candidate set up by a recognised political party, may file his nomination paper proposed by only one elector of the Constituency. If the nomination paper of the approved candidate of that political party is accepted, the nomination paper filed by the substitute or cover candidate, shall be liable to be rejected because there can be only one candidate set up by a recognised political party. In order to be a candidate set up by a registered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being proposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order must be satisfied. If any one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of nomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him. A situation can be visualised where more candidates than one may be aspiring to be the candidates each set up by the same recognised political party. The one in respect of whom notice and communication in forms A and B referable to sub-para (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of Symbols Order have been filed not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date for making nominations shall be treated as a candidate set up by such political party. His nomination paper, even if subscribed to by single elector as proposer, shall be valid subject to satisfying other conditions as to validity. If any of the requirements contemplated by sub-para (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order are not complied with by filing the requisite notice and communication, then the candidate shall not be deemed to be one set up by the recognised political party. His nomination, if subscribed by a single elector or electors less than ten, shall be liable to be rejected. If the nomination paper of such a candidate is subscribed to by ten proposers being electors of the Constituency within the meaning of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, then the nomination paper cannot be rejected because an error or omission as regards symbol or choice thereof being a defect not of a substantial character, would not come in the way of the nomination being accepted. The nomination paper shall be accepted as valid and an appropriate symbol to which the candidate may be entitled in accordance with the Symbols Order shall be allotted by the Election Commission."

32. Thus, it is clear, in the place of Form A and B and nomination papers issued to the first respondent would probabalise that he was a member on the rolls of INC as on the date of nomination. Otherwise he would not have been allotted nomination paper and Form A and B for the purpose of contesting the election as a nominee of INC.

33. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first respondent has not produced any document to show that he had resigned as an independent Member of Legislative Assembly so as to become Member of INC and the House was dissolved on 21st May, 2013. In the absence of the same, the first respondent could not have become Member of the INC. For this, the learned Senior counsel submits that even assuming that first respondent has incurred any disqualification from being a Member of XII Legislative Assembly, the Speaker cannot disqualify the first respondent from contesting in the next election, as he has no such power. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent is illegal or improper on the ground that he was not nominated from a political party and he ought to have been proposed by 10 voters and that such acceptance of nomination has materially affected the election results.

34. The burden of proving issue No.8 is on the respondent No.1. The first respondent contends that issuance of nomination paper and issuance of Form A and B from INC would prove that he was the member on the rolls of INC as on the date of filing nomination. As already stated, the petitioner has failed to produce the expulsion order. The materials on which the petitioner places reliance to say that first respondent was expelled, are not solely reliable to conclude that the first respondent was not the member on the rolls of INC as on the date of nomination. The first respondent could have produced the order withdrawing the expulsion. But, on the basis of the available materials, solely on the basis that he has not produced the order withdrawing the expulsion and the petitioner failing to produce the expulsion order, it cannot be said that the order of expulsion was not withdrawn.

35. It is the contention of the petitioner that there are two Blocks in Malavalli Assembly Constituency, one Malavalli Rural and another Malavalli Town. Both the Blocks has 2,500 members each. Both the blocks, as a natural phenomena, tend to vote in favour of the congress candidate. Therefore, had the first respondent not contested from Congress Party, those 5000 votes would have come to the petitioner. It is already held above that acceptance of nomination of the first respondent is neither illegal nor improper. Therefore, this aspect of the matter need not be gone into in detail.

36. It is contended by the petitioner that the first respondent has admitted that he was expelled from the party for sometime. Therefore, the first respondent has to prove that the expulsion order was withdrawn. PW-1 has admitted in his evidence that he has not produced any membership documents of JD(S) political party along with `B' form before the Returning Officer. PW-1 has denied that Ex.P4 complaint and P5 article published in weekly magazine Outlook, have been prepared in challenging the result of respondent No.1 since both petitioner and Siddaraju got defeated against respondent No.1 in 2008 elections. PW-19 has admitted that he has not been issued with membership certificate from INC. Section 87.3 of the Act provides that there shall be no admission of election petition where there is no evidence on controversies, nor covered by issues and the pleadings. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that the first respondent was expelled and it was continued even on the date of filing of nomination.

37. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion on the complaint made by one Sri Siddaraju (PW-19). When such expulsion is admitted, then it need not be proved. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has admitted in his written statement that he was expelled and thereafter it was recalled. In the chief examination, he has reiterated the same and so also in the cross-examination. When such admissions are made unequivocally, legal inference is to be drawn that pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was not the member of INC as on the date of filing nomination is admitted by the first respondent. It is, therefore, sufficient to comply the maxim 'admitted facts need not be proved'. It is submitted, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion, the petitioner has also proved the same by examining himself as PW-1 and he has also examined one Sri Siddaraju PW-19 and news Editor of Prajavani as PW-16. These witnesses have deposed the fact that the Respondent No.1 has been expelled. When such materials and evidence are available, that has to be taken for the purpose of expulsion.

38. In this regard, the materials before the Court are examined. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner, written statement and evidence of the respondent No.1 has been examined. It is acceptable principle that when the fact is admitted it need not be proved as is contemplated under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the proviso provides that it is the discretion of the Court to accept the materials and evidence placed by the petitioner. In the light of the said proviso, the case of the respective parties is further examined.

39. When it is a specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has been expelled, it is his burden to place materials. The petitioner has made specific pleadings in the petition. Petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and news editor as PW-16. These materials disclose that the Respondent No.1 has been expelled. However, that itself cannot be taken as a conclusive proof. The facts raised by the petitioner are to be proved at the first instance and facts if it is admitted, then only it can be taken for the purpose of expulsion. The news reader spoke about telecast of the news and editor about the expulsion of Respondent No.1. News paper materials and electronic media cannot be taken as a judicial notice since the order of expulsion has not been placed. The authorized person, i.e. the Secretary or President of the Congress Party if had been examined, the matter would have been different.

40. In the instant case, the petitioner has neither produced any expulsion order nor the evidence of the person who has expelled him. The admission which is claimed on behalf of the petitioner must be an unequivocal admission. The Respondent No.1 has not specifically stated that he has been expelled from the party membership. He has stated in the written statement that he has been expelled on one side but on the other, the same has been recalled. When he was expelled, when it was recalled, are material particulars for the purpose of the present case. In the chief examination, the respondent No.1 has stated that he was not aware about the expulsion but he was suspended and thereafter it was recalled. Similarly in the cross-examination. When this type of evidence is available, that cannot be accepted. The admission must be a legal admission. If the stray admission is made and if it is accepted, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. The respondent who admits the case, he should be asked in his evidence whether he has understood the consequences of such statement. As long as that is not done, the admission of the respondent cannot be accepted as sought to be contended by the petitioner.

41. In this background, in KARAM KAPAHI v. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 753, it has been held that wherever there is a clear admission of facts, in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there is clear admission of the case of the Respondent about the expulsion from the membership.

42. In GILBERT v. SMITH (1876) 2 Ch D 686 (CA) at page 687 it is held, ..if there was anything clearly admitted upon which something ought to be done, the plaintiff might come to the court at once to have that thing done, without any further delay or expense." At page 689, it is further observed, 'it must, however, be such an admission of facts as would shew that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the order asked for". "The rule was not meant to apply when there is any serious question of law to be argued. But if there is an admission on the pleadings which clearly entitles the plaintiff to an order, then the intention was that he should not have to wait, but might at once obtain any order...."

43. In HUGHES v. LONDON, EDINBURG and GLASGOW ASSURANCE CO., (1891)8 TLR 81 (CA), it is held that "judgment ought not to be signed upon admissions in a pleading or an affidavit, unless the admissions were clear and unequivocal, where the other party has made plain admission entitling the former to succeed". This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of the facts on the face of which, it is impossible for the party making it to succeed.

44. Following the very judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JEEVAN DIESELS and ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF) and ANOTHER, (2010) 6 SCC 601 has held that the admission must be clear and unambiguous. Admission if unambiguous depends upon the facts of each case, there being no clarity on the nature of admission.

45. In the light of the above, it is clear that unless there is an admission in a clear manner, the same cannot be accepted for the purpose of principle that facts admitted need not be proved. In the instant case, the admissions said to have been made by the first respondent, it is not in clear terms since he has said on one occasion expulsion made and recalled and on the other he was suspended and recalled. Secondly, the petitioner himself who takes a specific plea that the respondent has admitted that fact, but has not placed strong and believable evidence before this Court. Hence the submission of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has admitted the fact of expulsion cannot be accepted.

46. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Ex.R81-the acknowledgement which is produced and marked on behalf of the respondent No.1, cannot be looked into on the ground that the author of it is not examined and application is not produced. It is submitted, an adverse inference has to be drawn as against the first respondent for withholding the best document and a witness. The petitioner having approached the court is duty bound to establish the pleaded case and cannot depend on the weakness of the respondent. That too in election matters the election petitioner is required to prove critically the pleaded case and judgment cannot be signed on mere surmises and conjectures. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid reasons. It is already mentioned above that non-production of withdrawal order of expulsion by the first respondent, in the face of nomination paper and Form A and B issued to the first respondent, he was a member on the roll of INC and expulsion order must have been withdrawn. Accordingly issue Nos.1 to 3 and 8 are answered.

ISSUE Nos.4 to 7:

47. These issues relate to irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers, petitioner securing more number of votes and improper reception of valid votes by undue influence of the Returning Officer in favour of first respondent. These issues are connected to each other and hence they are dealt with together.

48. It is the case of the petitioner that Control Unit Number is not written or left blank in Form 17C-Part 1 and the Control Unit Number is written in Form No.17C-Part 2 and Control Unit number does not tally between Form 17C-Part 1 and 17C-Part II. The EVMs used on the date of voting have never been counted, which has resulted in improper reception of votes in favour of the first respondent. The tabular statement furnished by the petitioner is reproduced as herein under:

Polling Station No.Form 17C Part-IForm 17C Part-IIPage No.
Ex. No.Page No.Vol No.Control Unit No.Exhibit No.
45P.413271BlankP.42330
113P.694101BlankP.70413
156P.794402BlankP.80441
200P.934802BlankP.94483

49. It is further submitted that the Returning Officer has admitted and marked the documents without the objection being raised by the first respondent. Likewise the Notes prepared by the counting agents are marked as Ex.P9 to P23 with the objection of the first respondent. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has admitted the said Notes in Para-23 Page No.30 of the written statement. It is claimed that when there is an admission and the authors of the written documents are examined, this court has to accept the Notes and it has to be held that petitioner has secured 498 votes more than that of the first respondent. The petitioner claims the following difference of votes between the petitioner and first respondent.

Polling Station No.

Figures noted by the Election Agent of the Petitioner

JD(S) - PetitionerCongress - Res. No.1
204457308
25355400
235235135
146321360
102312252
194199277
254226181
120283247
TOTAL23882160

Polling Station No.

Figures noted by the Election Agent of the Petitioner

JD(S) - PetitionerCongress - Res. No.1
204379386
25335400
235135235
146258423
102215349
194119357
254146261
120263247
TOTAL18502658
50. It is further claimed by the petitioner that news item declaring the petitioner as won was shown in the Public TV on 8.5.2013. In this regard, petitioner has examined PW-15 News Reporter and got marked original CD of the said news item at Ex.P33. The respondent No.1 having not cross-examined PW- 15, it has to be taken that such news was published in the Public TV and contents of the original CD marked as Ex.P33 as true.

51. On the other hand, the first respondent submitted relating to discrepancies in Form 17A and 17B that the said evidence cannot be looked into because the said materials are without the pleadings and without seeking any amendments to the pleadings. It is submitted, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes.

52. With regard to these issues, let me examine the evidence of the witnesses.

53. PW1 has stated in the chief examination with reference to the petition averments. He has deposed relating to the above issues as follows:

"It is true that he has not made any application for recounting. It is true that myself and my counting agents were made efforts for recounting but no written applications were made. It is denied the suggestion that he made a false statement regarding the fact that my counting agents were forcibly sent outside by using police force. I do not know as to whether 10% of the electorates of Malavalli Constituency are illiterate voters who cast their votes in favour of first respondent in 2008 elections though he was a independent candidate. It is true that either myself or any of my counting agents have not made any written complaint to any of the election officers, Observers about the Returning Officer. It is true that counting was continuous and did not stop for announcement and display of counting of each round on the black board. It is denied the suggestion that till fifteenth round the petitioner was in lead and from sixteenth round onwards the respondent No.1 got the lead. It is true that postal ballots were again counted by the Returning Officer in the presence of the Observer, Petitioner and respondent No.1. I was present at the time of recounting of postal ballots and that was video recorded.

54. PW.2- S. Kambaraj is election agent of the petitioner. He has stated about the process of counting in the Chief-examination. His evidence is to the following effect:

"At the time of preparing Exhibit P9 to P23, table agents were with me. The result was announced at 1.20 p.m. and the results were announced on the black board and the notes were made as per exhibit P9 to Exhibit P23, there were some discrepancies. It is true that I have prepared kExs.P9to P23 and Ex.P24 - tabulation from between 12.20 to 1.20p.m. on the date of counting. By referring Exhibit P24 I state that as per agent count, the petitioner got 498 votes more than the first respondent. I have made oral request to the returning officer for recounting. They have not considered our request. Again I requested at 1.45 p.m. for retabulation that also not considered. In the cross-examination he has stated "Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P23 are not the slips collected from the counting agents on each round". I have denied the suggestion that Exhibit P9 to P23 have been prepared by the election petitioner."

55. PW.3 to PW.14 are the counting agents of the petitioner. They have stated more or less on the same lines. They have stated that there were discrepancies in the votes secured as per the tabulation and votes displayed on the black board.

56. PW.3 has stated in the cross-examination that "I can only remember that 8 to 10 signatures were taken on Form 17C Part-II, but I cannot remember on what rounds signatures were obtained. To the suggestion of signing Forms 9-15, he has stated that I cannot remember. I do not remember as to whether I signed Forms for 16th, 17th and 18th rounds. Exhibit P11 has been prepared by the Election agent and I have not done it. Ex.P11 is a note prepared by me. I have noted from the EVM counting and there was no difference in the votes secured by the first respondent. Even though there was no display of counting after twelfth round, I have recorded the votes secured from the EVM."

57. PW.4 has stated in his cross-examination that "though the round-wise counting was not displayed after twelfth round, it was not difficult for us to record the votes secured, and further, in the rounds recorded by me there was difference."

58. PW.5 has stated in his cross-examination that "I do not remember that I asked the Returning Officer and the election Observer to count the postal ballots first. He was the only counting agent who asked the Returning Officer to count the postal ballots first. I do not find any difference in votes secured by the petitioner and R-1 in any of the rounds. Suggestion have been denied that Ex.P13 was not prepared between 12.30 to 1.15 in the counting hall."

59. PW.6 has stated in the cross-examination that "I do not know whether the postal ballots was counted on that day. We were given Form 17-C Part-II for signature of counting agents. I have been given twelve Forms for signature and I have signed all of them. I do not remember up to which round Forms were given and not given. Display in respect of thirteenth to eighteenth rounds of counting were made after 12.30 p.m. Display of twelfth to eighteenth rounds of counting was made at once at 12.30 p.m."

60. PW.7 has stated in his cross-examination that we were given forms on completion of each round. I have signed the Forms in all the sixteen rounds and I do not remember signing Form for the seventeenth round. I did not find any difficulty in recording the votes for non-displaying of votes after twelfth round."

61. PW.8 has stated in the chief-examination that there were no display even for any round of counting either in the black board and also public address system. In the cross- examination PW8 has stated "counting agents were given Form 17-C Part-II and some have not signed. Counting Officers did not enquire about why Form 17-C Part-II has not signed. Votes declared in EVM were noted in white sheets by me. Exhibit P17 is not the slip given by me to Kambaraju. I had not noticed any difference of votes secured by the candidates till the completion of seventeenth round."

62. PW.9 has stated in the cross-examination that "I see Exhibit P18. It is not the chit given by me to Kambaraju. I was not aware about the difference of votes secured by the petitioner and first respondent till the completion of seventeenth round."

63. PW.10 has stated in the cross-examination, that "on each round Kambaraju used to collect votes secured on a chit. I do not know any difference of votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No.1 till the completion of counting of seventeenth round. I noticed the difference of votes only when Kambaraju told me. I do not remember the difference of vortes occurred in which round."

64. PW.11 has stated in the cross-examination that "till completion of counting of seventeenth round I did not notice difference of votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1. I have not noticed the difference of votes till I was told by Kambaraju."

65. PW.12 has stated in the cross-examination that "there was no commotion of difference of votes in any round between any candidate. I was given Form No.17-C Part-II for my signature on each round."

66. PW.13 has admitted in the cross-examination that "I see Exhibit P.22 and it is not the note given by me. Differences of votes were not noticed till the completion of all the rounds. I came to know about the difference of votes only on information given by Kambaraju."

67. PW.14 has stated in the cross-examination that "there was no occasion of interchanging the votes secured. I used to give slip of papers with votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1 to Kambaraju on each round. Before completion of seventeenth round I had no knowledge of discrepancies or differences of votes secured by petitioner and respondent No.1."

68. PW.15 is the news reporter of Public TV. He has stated about news carried on 8.5.2013 in Public TV that the petitioner had won in the election. Exhibit P.33-compact disc was marked subject to objections by the respondent.

69. PW.16 is the news editor of Prajavani newspaper. He has stated about the report published in the news paper Exhibits P34, 35 and 36 about expulsion of first respondent. The said documents were also marked subject to objections by the first respondent.

70. PW.17 is the Project Director, DUDC, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya who is the Returning Officer for the Constituency in question. He has stated in the cross-examination before the commencement of polling, mock poll would be conducted with prior intimation and in front of election agents. They would be permitted to verify, identify the EVMs, Control Unit and Ballot Unit and also as to functioning of EVMs. They demonstrate the functioning of EVMs. After completion of mock poll, whatever entered in the machine is erased and result portion would be sealed with green-strips and thereafter nobody can open it except the candidate. First, counting of postal ballots takes place. Postal ballots were also collected from the central strong room and were taken to counting hall. He has stated presence of election agents and candidates at the counting of postal ballots has also been video recorded. He was there for about 5 to 10 minutes watching of counting of postal ballots and he came to his seat. After about half an hour he asked the staff to bring Control Units. Counting of postal ballot went for about two hours. He has not received any objections at any round complaining with regard to machine number and seal etc, till the completion of the counting process. Control Units were shown to the static micro observers and counting agents to ensure that the Control Units were not tampered. On pressing the 'result' button the machine display (1) Control Unit Number; (2) Date of polling; and (3) Number of candidates in the fray. Then the votes secured by each candidates is displayed. Random checking is done by the additional counting staff. The entries made after cross-checking would be given to general observers. Further verification of entries in Form No.17-C Part- II with reference to voter statistics and also Form No.17-C Part-I and the same will be transmitted to the Observers. It would be returned back to him in case it is found that there is any mistake. If it is in order, it would be sent to data entry operator. Print out given to him by the data entry operator would again be cross-verified by him with regard to polling station number and votes secured by each candidate and also total number of votes cast in that polling station. That will be given to the observers. It will be initialed by the Observers and again it will be given back to him and he will also put initials to it. Each round result- sheet would be collected by information officer of Central Media Room and he announces to the public. When this process is taking place, the counting will not be stopped. It is true that there is rule in the Election Manual, till the counting of each round displayed on the black board, next EVM should not be secured for counting. The similar process of counting is followed till it is displayed on the black board on all the rounds. When the result-sheet of eighteenth round would disclose the votes secured in previous seventeen rounds, including the eighteenth round, the votes secured in postal ballots is taken separately. It is true that he has added the votes secured in postal ballots with the total votes secured at eighteenth round. Form No.20 would be taken after completion of eighteenth round and in that Form No.20, the votes secured in the postal ballots is shown.

71. The Election Commissioner of India, by order dated 5th May 2011 has directed the Returning Officer to re-verify the postal ballots, in case, margin of votes secured by first and second leading candidates, is less than the total postal ballots hold. He did not find any difference of votes secured by first and second leading candidates in the postal ballot votes and he also found that there was no variation in the votes secured by all the candidates. Form 20 was given to the candidates and Form 21-C was given to the returned candidate. Form 21-E was sent to the Election Commission of India, District Election Officer and Observer.

72. PW.18-L Narayan, is the Office Secretary of KPCC. He has stated that the first respondent belongs to Congress Party. However, he has stated he is working as Office Secretary and not as a Party Secretary and hence he does not know much about the affairs of the Party. He does not remember whether the first respondent contested from the party in the year 2008. Records pertaining to Party are with the General Secretary.

73. Now let me scan the relevant provisions of the Act relating to these issues.

74. Section 86.3 of the Act deals with power to allow amendment of Election petition. It is permissible for a Party to furnish particulars, even after the period of limitation for filing election has expired, with permission of Court, but no material facts, unless already pleaded, can be permitted to be introduced after the expiry of the period of limitation.

75. Section 86.6 of the Act deals with power to order recounting of ballot papers. It is stated, a democracy runs smooth on the wheels of periodic and pure elections. The verdict of the polls announced by the Returning Officers lead to formation of a Government. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent and flippant recount by Courts, a new threat to the certainty of the poll system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, secrecy of ballot, which is sacrosanct, becomes exposed to the deleterious trying, if recount of votes is made easy. The general reaction, if there is judicial relaxation on this issue, may well be a fresh pressure on luckless candidates, particularly, when the winning margin is only of a few hundred votes, to ask for a recount, looking for a numerical good fortune or windfall of chance discovery of illegal rejection or reception of ballots. This may lead to dangerous disorientation which invades the democratic order by injecting widespread scope for reopening of declared returns, unless the court restricts recourse to recount to cases of genuine apprehension of miscount or illegality or other compulsions of justice necessitating such a drastic step.

76. Section 86.6.1 of the Act stipulates the following conditions for recounting:

(i) the court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is established;

(ii) the material facts and full particulars have been pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes;

(iii) a rowing and fishing inquiry should not be directed by way of an order to recount the votes;

(iv) an opportunity should be given to file objections; and

(v) secrecy of the ballot should be guarded.

77. Section 87.1 of the Act deals with the trial of Election Petition. It is stated, a trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil law, is akin to trial on a criminal charge.

78. Section 87.3 of the Act deals with the evidence. It is stated there shall be no admission of election petition where there is no evidence on controversies, nor covered by issues and the pleadings. Evidence can be allowed to be led on a plea properly raised and issues framed. No evidence can be allowed to be led relating to allegations about which no issue has been framed. Irrelevant, impermissible and inadmissible evidence cannot be allowed to be brought on record. Evidence adduced in support of the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and stand test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny and should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations made, have been committed rendering the election void under Section 100 of the Act.

79. Section 97.4 of the Act deals with Election petition alleging irregularities in counting of votes. It states that for purpose of enabling an enquiry that any votes have been improperly cast in favour of any candidate other than the returned candidate or any votes have been improperly refused or rejected in regard to the returned candidate, the election court shall acquire jurisdiction to do so only on the following conditions being satisfied.-

"(i) Election petition seeks declaration that election of returned candidate is void on the ground under Section 100(1)(d);

(ii) The election petition seeks a further declaration that any candidate other than returned candidate has been duly elected; and

(iii) The recrimination petition under Section 97.1 is filed by the returned candidate.

80. Now, let me evaluate the oral evidence and documentary evidence available on record in respect of these issues No.4 to 7 keeping in view the provisions of law mentioned above.

81. The petitioner claims more number of votes in his favour on the basis of the tabulation prepared by the election agent as per Exhibit P.24 based on the notes submitted by the counting agents. The evidence of the petitioner and the counting agents, the part of which is extracted as above, will not repose confidence to base reliance on either the notes prepared by the counting agents or the tabulation prepared by the election agent. Some of the counting agents have disowned the notes which were stated to have been handed over to the election agent. In view of the limitation imposed on the election courts as to the interference with the election results and the materials placed on record by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out grounds for either recounting or to set aside the election of the returned candidate. The Returning Officer has clearly stated the procedure followed in the counting process and he has categorically stated that there is no variation in the number of votes counted either in favour of the petitioner or the first respondent.

82. PW-1 and PW-3 to 14 have admitted that no written complaint is made to the Returning Officer as to the irregularities or discrepancies in counting of votes. If really there is discrepancy and irregularity, nothing prevented the election agent and counting agents to make a written complaint in this regard. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the counting agents as well as the election agent of the petitioner were quite experienced in the matter of election. The election petitioner has failed to bring on record what is that irregularity or discrepancy in the counting process affecting materially the election results. What is required of the election petitioner to bring on record is that irregularity or discrepancy, which has materially affected the election results. Non giving of written complaint will lead to conclusion that there was no irregularity or discrepancy in the counting process materially affecting the election results.

83. It is the claim of the petitioner, based on the tabulation Ex.P24 prepared by the election agent which is again based on the notes prepared by the counting agents, that petitioner secured more number of votes than the first respondent. The petitioner has failed to prove the notes prepared by the counting agents and based on which the tabulation is prepared by the election agent. The evidence of the election agent and counting agents is not cogent and trustworthy so as to place reliance on the same. The Returning Officer has in detail deposed that there is no variation in number of votes either to the petitioner or to the first respondent. There is no irregularity in counting of votes and postal ballot papers. PW-2 to PW-14 have stated that there was no difficulty in recording the counting of votes through EVMs. There is no consistency in the evidence of election agent as well as the counting agents that there was no display of votes on the black board or public display system. Some say there was display and some say there was no display after 12th round. The election petitioner has stated in the petition itself that the election petitioner was leading up to 16th round. All the counting agents have stated that they came to know the discrepancy only when the election agent told them so. If there was no display of votes, how the election petitioner could come to know his leading up to 16th round is not made clear. It is found in the evidence of the counting agents that there is no possibility of interchanging of votes. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove that there was no display of votes after 12th round and that has materially affected the election result and that the petitioner secured more votes than that of the first respondent.

84. It is the case of the petitioner that documents were directed to be handed over to the petitioner as well as the first respondent and after going through the said documents, various irregularities were found. However, the petitioner could not amend the election petition in view of the principle "Doctrine of Relation Back". In case the petitioner amended the petition and the amendment was allowed, petitioner could not proceed in view of the settled principle of Doctrine of Relation Back. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 (supra) and referred to Para 24 and 25. The said judgment deals with amendment of pleadings, which if allowed relates back to date of filing the proceedings and in some cases the court can direct the amendment to come into effect from the date on which the application seeking amendment was made.

85. In the instant case, the amendment application is not made and amendment is not carried out to the election petition. Therefore, the necessary pleadings as to the irregularity are not there for the election petitioner and thereby the election petitioner cannot go beyond the pleadings by leading any amount of evidence. In that view of the matter, the alleged irregularity materials cannot be looked into. As already stated above, nothing in the election petition could be taken as admission thereby it would absolve the petitioner from proving his pleaded case.

86. Will of the people must prevail and courts would be understandably extremely slow to set at naught the will of the people truly and freely exercised. If the courts were to do otherwise, the courts would be pitting their will against the will of the people or countermanding the choice of the people without any object, aim or purpose as held in AZHAR HUSSAIN vs., RAJIV GANDHI reported in AIR 1986 SC 1253. But that does not mean that election court shall not interfere with the election. Where there is a genuine case and where the court comes to the conclusion that election of the returned candidate is thoroughly improper and illegal, the election court is duty bound to interfere with the election as the fair and proper election is the paramount consideration. No such case is made out by the petitioner to grant any of the reliefs prayed for.

87. In the result and for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the election petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The security deposit made by the petitioner towards cost is directed to be paid to the first respondent.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

1. PW.1 - Dr. K. Annadani

2. PW.2 - Shri Kambaraj

3. PW.3 - Shri T.P. Jaware Gowda

4. PW.4 - Shri D.K. Somashakar

5. PW.5 - Shri T. Nandakumar

6. PW.6 - Shri B. Raji

7. PW.7 - Shri Doddaiah

8. PW.8 - Shri R.N. Siddaraju

9. PW.9 - Shri K.S. Shankare Gowda

10. PW.10 - Shri A.C. Rajanna

11. PW.11 - Shri K.V. Prakash

12. PW.12 - Shri J.C. Mahadeva Swamy

13. PW.13 - Shri Sadananda

14. PW.14 - Shri B.J. Kumar

15. PW.15 - Shri Sunil G.S.

16. PW.16 - Shri Keshava Gurunatha Jingade

17. PW.17 - Shri E.V. Venkataramana Reddy

18. PW.18 - Shri L. Narayana

19. PW.19 - Shri Y.S. Siddaraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

Ex.P1 List of contested candidates to 186 Malavalli (SC) Assembly Constituency;

Ex.P2 Declaration of the result of election;

Ex.P3 Return of Election Form No.21E;

Ex.P4 Complaint dated 28.4.2008;

Ex.P5 Article published in weekly magazine Outlook dated 29.4.2008;

Ex.P6 Nomination paper of respondent No.1;

Ex.P7 'A' Form issued to respondent No.1;

Ex.P8 Form 'B' issued to respondent No.1;

Ex.P9 Copy of the note made by the election agent in respect of Table No.1;

Ex.P10-23 Note made by the election agent of petitioner in respect Table Nos.2 to 15;

Ex.P24 Tabulation prepared by the election agent of the petitioner;

Ex.P25 Representation to the returning officer by the petitioner regarding re-tabulation in respect of discrepancies in counting process;

Ex.P26 Reply of the Returning Officer to the representation of the petitioner;

Ex.P27 Representation dated 14.5.2013 made by the petitioner to Returning Officer;

Ex.P28 Endorsement dated 15.5.2013 issued by the Returning Officer;

Ex.P29 Representation dated 17.5.2013 made by the petitioner to the Returning Officer;

Ex.P30 Representation dated 17.05.2013 made to the Electoral Officer;

Ex.P31 Representation dated 17.5.2013 made by the petitioner to Election Commission of India. Ex.P32 Certificate for security of deposits. Ex.P33 Original CD produced by Public TV.

Ex.P34 News Paper Prajavani, Kannada edition dated 29.4.2008.

Ex.P35 Newspaper Prajavani, Kannada Edition dated 30.4.2008.

Ex.P36 Newspaper Prajavani, Kannada Edition dated 1.5.2008.

Ex.P37 Certified copy of the Form No.17C Part-I, booth No.37

Ex.P38 Certified copy of Form No.17C Part-II, booth No.37.

Ex.P39 Form No.17C Part-I, Polling Station No.38

Ex.P40 Form No.17C Part-II, Polling Station No.38.

Ex.P41 Certified copy of Form No.17C, Part-I, Polling Station No.45.

Ex.P42 Certified copy of Form No.17C, Part-II Polling Station No.45.

Ex.P43 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.47.

Ex.P44 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.47.

Ex.P45 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.57.

Ex.P46 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.47.

Ex.P47 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.63.

Ex.P48 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.63.

Ex.P49 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.74.

Ex.P50 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.74.

Ex.P51 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.77.

Ex.P52 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.77.

Ex.P53 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.80.

Ex.P54 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.80.

Ex.P55 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.85.

Ex.P56 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.85.

Ex.P57 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.87.

Ex.P58 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.87.

Ex.P59 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.88.

Ex.P60 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.88.

Ex.P61 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.89.

Ex.P62 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.89.

Ex.P63 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.92.

Ex.P64 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.92.

Ex.P65 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.95.

Ex.P66 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.95.

Ex.P67 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.102.

Ex.P68 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.102.

Ex.P69 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.113.

Ex.P70 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.113.

Ex.P71 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.117.

Ex.P72 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.117.

Ex.P73 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.118.

Ex.P74 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.118.

Ex.P75 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.123.

Ex.P76 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.123.

Ex.P77 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.151.

Ex.P78 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.151.

Ex.P79 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.156.

Ex.P82 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.156.

Ex.P81 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.158.

Ex.P82 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.158.

Ex.P83 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.176.

Ex.P84 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.176

Ex.P85 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.179 C.U.No.01

Ex.P86 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.179.

Ex.P.87 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.87.

Ex.P88 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.183.

Ex.P88 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.183.

Ex.P89 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.195.

Ex.P90 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P91 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.91.

Ex.P92 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.92.

Ex.P93 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.93.

Ex.P94 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.

Ex.P95 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P96 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.201.

Ex.P97 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.202.

Ex.P98 Form No.17C Part Polling Station No.202.

Ex.P99 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.203.

Ex.P100 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.203.

Ex.P101 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P102 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.

Ex.P103 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P104 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P105 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P106 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.214

Ex.P107 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P108 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.

Ex.P109 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.226

Ex.P110 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.226.

Ex.P111 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.229

Ex.P112 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.229.

Ex.P113 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.230.

Ex.P114 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.230.

Ex.P115 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.232.

Ex.P116 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.232.

Ex.P117 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.233.

Ex.P118 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.233.

Ex.P119 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.234.

Ex.P120 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.234.

Ex.P121 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P122 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.

Ex.P123 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P124 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.

Ex.P125 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P126 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P127 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.243

Ex.P128 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.243

Ex.P129 Form No.17C Part-I

Ex.P130 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.246.

Ex.P131 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.248.

Ex.P132 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.248.

Ex.P133 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P134 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.260.

Ex.P135 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.137.

Ex.P136 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.137.

Ex.P137 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.01

Ex.P138 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.01.

Ex.P139 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.02.

Ex.P140 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P141 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P142 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P143 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.17.

Ex.P144 Form No.17C Part-II Polling Station No.17.

Ex.P145 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P146 Form No.17C Part-I Polling Station No.

Ex.P147 Membership book for Indian National Congress Regional Congress Committee Sl.No.47295 Karnataka

Ex.P148 Affidavit evidence of R1 served on the petitioner

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

RW-1 P M NARENDRASWAMY

RW-2 BOSERAJU

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

Ex.R1 Photos relates to EVMs arrangements in strong room

Ex.R2 Photos relates to EVMs arrangements in strong room

Ex.R3 Second randomization list for No.186, Malavalli Assembly Constituency

Ex.R4 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.95

Ex.R5 Voters list of P S No.95

Ex.R6 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.220

Ex.R7 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.230

Ex.R8 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.232

Ex.R9 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.234

Ex.R10 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.137

Ex.R11 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.01

Ex.R12 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.02

Ex.R13 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.16

Ex.R14 Voters list of P S No.25

Ex.R15 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.47

Ex.R16 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.200

Ex.R17 Voters list of P S No.200

Ex.R18 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.158

Ex.R19 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.158

Ex.R20 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.158

Ex.R21 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.246

Ex.R22 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.237

Ex.R23 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.237

Ex.R24 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.137

Ex.R25 Voters list of P S No.220

Ex.R26 Voters list of P S No.230

Ex.R27 Voters list of P S No.232

Ex.R28 Voters list of P S No.234

Ex.R29 Voters list of P S No.01

Ex.R30 Voters list of P S No.2

Ex.R31 Voters list of P S No.16

Ex.R32 Voters list of P S No.47

Ex.R33 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.120

Ex.R34 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.120

Ex.R35 Form - 17C pertains to Part - II P S No.

Ex.R36 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.102

Ex.R37 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.146

Ex.R38 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.146

Ex.R39 Form - 17C pertains to Part - II P S No.146

Ex.R40 Form - 17a pertains to P S No.254

Ex.R41 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.254

Ex.R42 Form - 17C pertains to Part - II P S No.

Ex.R43. Form - 17A pertains to P S No.235

Ex.R44 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.

Ex.R45 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.

Ex.R43 Form - 17A Voters list P S No.194

Ex.R47 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.194

Ex.R48 Form - 17C pertains to Part - II P S No.194

Ex.R49 Form - 17A voters list P S No.204

Ex.R50 Form - 17C pertains to Part - I P S No.204

Ex.R51 Form - 17C pertains to Part - II P S No.204

Ex.R52 Form - 17A voters list P S No.156

Ex.R53 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.156

Ex.R54 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.195

Ex.R55 Voters List P S No.195

Ex.R56 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.214

Ex.R57 Voters list P S No.214

Ex.R58 Voters list P S No.241

Ex.R59 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.240

Ex.R60 Voters list P S No.201

Ex.R61 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.201

Ex.R62 Voters list P S No.113

Ex.R63 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.113

Ex.R64 Voters list P S No.77

Ex.R65 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.77

Ex.R66 Voters list P S No.177

Ex.R67 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.117

Ex.R68 Voters list P S No.45

Ex.R69 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.45

Ex.R70 Voters list for P S No.63

Ex.R71 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.63

Ex.R72 Form - 17A pertains to P S No.243

Ex.R73 Voters list for P S No.243

Ex.R74 Voters list for P S No.243

Ex.R75 Voters list for P S No.235

Ex.R76 Voters list for P S No.204

Ex.R77 Voters list for P S No.194

Ex.R78 Voters list for P S No.146

Ex.R79 Voters list for P S No.120

Ex.R80 Voters list for P S No.102

Ex.R81 Receipt of acknowledgement for membership with membership fee

Ex.R82 Circular regarding membership drive for 2011-2015


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //