Skip to content


Ganga Ram Vs. Jeewan Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 1967
Judge
Reported in1969WLN391
AppellantGanga Ram
RespondentJeewan Ram and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases Referred & Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh
Excerpt:
rajasthan panchayat & nyaya panchayat election rules, 1960 - rule 89--petitioner not a defeated candidate--whether essential for petitioner to give particulars of votes.;rule 80 equally applies to a petitioner who is a defeated candidate and to one who is merely a voter. if a voter who was not a defeated candidate was not required to give particulars then the law would be evaded by the defeated candidate by getting an election petition filed by one of his supporters. it is as essential for a petitioner who is not a defeated candidate to give particulars of the improper acceptance or rejection of votes at it is for a defeated candidate. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h):..........the objection on the ground that the election petition was filed by two voters and not by the defeated candidate. rule 80 equally applies to a petitioner who is a defeated candidate and to one who is merely a voter. if a voter who was not a defeated candidate was not required to give particulars then the law would be evaded by the defeated candidate by getting an election petition filed by one of his supporters. i am accordingly of the opinion that it is as essential for a petitioner who is not a defeated candidate to give particulars of the improper acceptance or rejection of votes as it is for a defeated candidate. as to what particulars are sufficient in case of an election petition challenging the election to the office of sarpanch or panch have dealt with in amar singh v......
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution by one Ganga Ram whose election to the office of Sarpanch was set aside by the Tribunal as a result of recount on the petition of two voters Jeevan Ram and Bhaguram.

2. According to the counting made by the Returning Officer Ganga Ram polled 431 votes and Baluram polled 429 votes. It is not disputed that on account of a very narrow magin between the votes polled by the two respective candidates the Returning Officer scrutinised and counted the votes four times before declaring the result.

3. In the election petition all that was alleged by the petitioners was that the counting was not proper. No particulars were at all given. Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules. 1960 lays down that the petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.

4. An objection was taken on behalf of Ganga Ram on the strength of various decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court that because no particulars have been given with regard to the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes the petitioners were not entitled to a recount. The Tribunal however overruled the objection on the ground that the election petition was filed by two voters and not by the defeated candidate. Rule 80 equally applies to a petitioner who is a defeated candidate and to one who is merely a voter. If a voter who was not a defeated candidate was not required to give particulars then the law would be evaded by the defeated candidate by getting an election petition filed by one of his supporters. I am accordingly of the opinion that it is as essential for a petitioner who is not a defeated candidate to give particulars of the improper acceptance or rejection of votes as it is for a defeated candidate. As to what particulars are sufficient in case of an election petition challenging the election to the office of Sarpanch or Panch have dealt with in Amar Singh v. Munsiff-Magistrate, Jodhpur 1967 R.L.W. 224.

5. The principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai AIR 1964 S.C. 1949 & Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh : AIR1966SC773 are applicable to this case.

6. I accordingly hold that a recount of the ballot papers by the Tribunal was not justified in this case.

7. The writ petition is therefore allowed & the order of the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition.


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