A The appellant, Shri Ram Autar Smgh Bhadauria, Respondent No. 1 Chaudhari Ram Gopal Singh and Respondents 2 to 11 contested election, as rival candidates from U. P. Legislative Assembly Constituency (No. 293), Sarsaul. The poll was held on 24-2-1974. The appellant was declared elected. The total number of votes polled was 72735. Out of these, the appellant secured 23626 and ResponB dent 1, his nearest rival polled 23604, the margin being of 22 vmcs only. Respondent 1 filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant inter alia on the ground (vide para 9(1) of the petition) that the result of the election so far as the returned candidate was concerned materially affected by improper reception and rejection of votes and mistakes in counting. It was alleged : c "para 11 (a). That in a number of polling stations, the instruments supplied to the electors for the purposes of stamping on or near the symbol of the candidate to whom he intends to vote, was seal of Presiding Officer which was meant to be put on the reverse of the ballot papers. Since the electors were supplied these instruments by the PresidD ing Officer for marking the ballot papers the electors indi· cated their choice by marking in the column of the petitioner with that instrument. There were 41 such ballot papers which were clear votes for the petitioner that were illegally rejected by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the electors' choice was expressed through the instrument meant for the Presiding Officer for stamping on the reverse side of the ballot papers. Particulars of such ballot papers are given in Schedule I attached to the Election Petition. (b) That in a number of polling stations, the electors were issued ballot papers along with the counter-foil. While issuing the ballot papers to the electors, the polling staff deputed there did not detach the counter foil and the electors .... F after putting seal mark put the ballot papers along with the counter foil in the ballot box. It was due to the mistake of the staff deputed at the polling station. The number of ~·. some of such ballot papers are-100976, 100977, 100978, 100979, 100980, 100982, 100983 and 100984. These ballot papers clearly indicate the votes for the petitioner but they were megally rejected on the ground that the identity G of the elector can be established. The reason on which it was rejected was wholly illegal. The particulars of such ballot papers are given in Schedule II attached to this election petition." In his written statement, the successful candidate stated : H "65 ( 1). That the contents of paragraph No. 9 (1) of the Election Petition are not admitted. The result of the election in so far as the answering respondent is; concerned has not been materially affected by any improper reception or 14-L714 Sup. CI/75
