Allowed

Umesh Yadav v. Collectariate

Jharkhand HC3 Dec 2014WPC/6270/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an election petition dismissal, the Court allowed the petition due to missing election documents and uncontroverted allegations of irregularities, directing the Returning Officer to recount votes within four weeks following prescribed legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Respondent no. 2 directed to conduct re-counting of votes within 4 weeks following the procedure prescribed under the law.

Umesh Yadav Vs Collectariate — Election Law | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6270 of 2013

¶3

Umesh Yadav, S/o Mahesh Gope, R/o Village- Sonpurbigha P.S. Huntergunj, District- Chatra, ... ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner, Chatra -cum- District Returning Officer, Chatra.

¶7

S.D.O. Chatra

¶8

Block Development Officer-cum- Returning Officer, Hunterganj, Chatra

¶9

Upendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Suyadeo Yadav, Village-Salaiya Dumuhan

¶10

Ashok Paswan, S/o Late Jaynath Paswan, Vill-Nawadih

¶11

Aditya Kumar, S/o Sukan Bhuinya, R/o Village-Nawadih

¶12

Chandrika Bhuinya, S/o Sri Manga Bhuinya, R/o Village- Nawadih

¶13

Manohar Yadav S/o Late Mangar Yadav R/o Village- Bhogtadih

¶14

Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late Thakur Singh, R/o Village- Dholia 11. Ramshish Singh, S/o Sri Rajdeo Singh, R/o Village- Bhogtadih

¶15

Vansh Uday Narayan Singh, S/o Late Kesho Singh R/o Village-Nawadih

¶16

Ramji Yadav, S/o Late Paran Yadav, R/o Village-Indrahi All -Panchayat-Genjna, P.O. Karma, P.S. Hunterganj, Distt.-Chatra … ... Respondents

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶18

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, J.C. to A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate

¶19

09/03.12.2014 Seeking quashing of order dated 06.08.2013 in

¶20

Election Petition Case No. 05 of 2011, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

The petitioner claiming himself a candidate for election on the post of 'Mukhiya', who allegedly secured maximum votes polled, filed the election petition on the

¶22

¶23

allegation that though he received 439 votes and one Upendra Yadav received only 426 votes, the said Upendra Yadav has been declared successful candidate and therefore, he demanded recounting of votes. In the election petition, the petitioner alleged various instances of irregularities. The respondent-State of Jharkhand and the respondent no. 5 who was declared elected candidate denied and disputed the allegations levelled by the petitioner and accordingly, vide order dated 06.08.2013, Election Petition Case No. 05 of 2011 was dismissed.

¶24

After the notice was issued on 31.03.2014, the parties appeared before this Court and filed their respective counter-affidavits. An application being I.A. No. 5468 of 2014 was filed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand seeking further time for producing “Prapatra 17 Kh” and vide order dated 21.10.2014 two weeks' time was granted for filing necessary affidavit and producing original “Prapatra 17 Kh”. Subsequently, the respondent-State of Jhrkhand filed an affidavit stating that “Prapatra 17 Kh” was not found in the boxes.

¶25

Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation that, in the election serious irregularities were committed during counting of the votes, stands confirmed from the fact that the original “Prapatra 17 K” has been found missing. It is further submitted that the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 14 &15 in the writ petition has remained un-controverted. The petitioner

¶26

¶27

has produced certified copies of “Prapatra 17 K” which would disclose the discrepancy in the total number of votes actually polled.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondents took unusual plea that the petitioner at different stages has taken inconsistent stand. The petitioner has disclosed that in the election petition the total number of votes allegedly polled to him was 439 whereas, in his representation to the Chief Election Commission, Ranchi he has claimed that he was polled 427 votes and thus, he himself was not sure the total number of votes he received.

¶29

From the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the the present writ petition deserves to be allowed on simple ground that “Prapatra 17 K” and statement made in paragraph nos. 14 & 15 in the writ petition remained un-controverted. A perusal of “Prapatra 17 K” and the calculation of total number of ballot papers used in the election indicates that the total number of ballot papers used in the election as claimed by the official respondents is 2329 which is far more than the total number of used ballot papers disclosed in “Prapatra 17 K”. Without going into the technicalities, I am of the opinion that the discrepancy which is apparent on the face of record requires re-counting of the votes and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶30

It the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to conduct re-counting of votes

¶31

¶32

within 4 weeks, a copy of order is communicated to him. In the re-counting, the procedure prescribed under the law, must be

¶33

followed.

¶34

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶35

Satyarthi/-

Umesh Yadav v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Yadav v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Aftab Alam And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Justina Orain Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

MD Shaban Ansari Vs Jharkhand Academic Council

Rohit Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman And Anr.

Liyakat Ali and Ors. Vs Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation

Sanjay Kumar Vs State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.