Haru Rajwar v. Gour Harijan — 1997 DIGILAW 903 (PAT)

Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The election of the returned candidate of Gour Harijan (respondent No. 1) from 286 Chandankiary (S.C.) Assembly Constituency of the State of Bihar in the last Assembly election held in the month of March, 1995, has been challenged in this election petition under Secs. 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The election process had been conducted in the following manner as has been stated in paragraph 3 of the election petition: (a) Date of filing of nomination paper--16.1.1995 to 23.1.1995. (b) Date of Scrutiny of the nomination paper--24.1.1995. (c) Last date of withdrawal of nomination paper--27.1.1995. (d) Date of Polling--11.3.1995. (e) Date of counting of votes--29.3.1995. (f) Date of declaration of result--30.3.1995. 3. It has been said in the election petition that total number of valid votes received by respondent No. 1 (Gour Harijan) was shown to be 29, 941 while total number of valid votes had been shown to be 29, 767 and thus the election petitioner alleged to have lost the election by a margin of 174 votes only. The total number of valid votes counted was 94, 855 while the total number of rejected ballot papers is 3102. According to the petitioner he filed his nomination paper as an authorised candidate of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Mardi)(hereinafter to be referred to as "the J.M.M. (Mardi) and for allotment of symbol, as per the Election Commission is notification in Paragraph 13, the Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, he submitted the necessary forms A and B along with the nomination paper to show that he was the authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi). At the relevant time, J.M.M. (Mardi) was registered as unrecognised political party and, as per the petitioner, the Election Commission vide his order dated 26.12.1994 informed all the Returning Officers and the District Election Officers that J.M.M. (Mardi) was registered as unrecognised political party. But the petitioner was not considered as an authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and he was shown to be an Independent Candidate by the Returning Officer in Form No. 7 : A under Rule 10 (1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rules). 4. But the petitioner was not considered as an authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and he was shown to be an Independent Candidate by the Returning Officer in Form No. 7 : A under Rule 10 (1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (the Rules). 4. According to the petitioner, he being a popular leader and a member of the Central Committee of J.M.M (Mardi) and was very much fighting for the cause of separate State for Jharkhand region, it was very much necessary for the election petitioner to be construed as an authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and in not doing so and showing him as an independent candidate, the petitioner had not been able to propagate and make campaign as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and practically he was stopped also in doing so by the Returning Officer. This created great confusion in the minds of the people of the area in general and in the minds of supporters, workers and the active members of J.M.M. (Mardi) in particular and in that respect, the petitioner had lost at least ten thousand more votes when he was not shown as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi). 5. The further contention of the election petitioner was that as the Rule 31 (1)(b) of the Rules, the names of the contesting candidates had to be displayed prominently at each polling booth to enable the voters to know the names, position and status of the contesting candidates with their symbols so that the electors might not have any difficulty in casting their votes of choice. But in the list contained the names and symbols of seven candidates on the front page and on the overleaf, the names of two candidates were there admittedly of the election petitioner and the respondent No.8 (Haripad Das). In most of the booths, displaying was made by posting fixing a copy of the list of the candidates whereby the names of the election petitioner and that of Haripad Das could not be displayed, as a result of which, the supporters were perplexed and finding no name of their candidate of choice, they had to return without casting their votes, as a result of which, the election petitioner lost at least 2500 votes. It is also the case of the election petitioner that due to negligence, the specimen signature of the petitioner or his election agent could not be sent to the respective polling booths by the Returning Officer and the Presiding Officers of such polling booths did not allow the Polling Agents of the petitioner to enter doubting their appointments and as such the intending voters to cast their votes in favour of the petitioner could not be properly guided for absence of the Polling Agents of the petitioner. On these grounds, the said election petition was materially affected as non-compliance with the provision of the constitution and the Act and the Rules thereof had vitiated the election on such grounds alone, the election petition is sought to be allowed. 6. It was also stated in the election petition that 427 votes of Booth No. 55 were being illegally counted. According to the petitioner, Form No. 16 displayed that 427 ballots although were used had never been inserted into the ballot box but those had been found on opening the ballot box in the booth and the same were counted. Similar allegations have been brought in respect, of other booths also and such displaying of Form No. 16 conclusively discloses that counting was improper, irregular and illegal. In Paragraph 26 of the election petition, the petitioners contention is that five ballot papers had been found by a constable lying at Chandankiary police station which were handed over to the News Editor of Bokaro Mail a weekly local Newspaper who in turn published the photographs of one of such ballots which discloses that there was rampant irregularity and illegality in conducting the election. 7. At the time of counting, two Assistant Returning Officers who were Incharge of 279 Bokaro Assembly Constituency were found inside the counting hall of 286 Chandiankiyari (S.C.) Assembly constituency. The entry of these unauthorised persons had been videographed by the Camera man. Shri Samresh Singh, one of the candidates from 279 Bokaro Constituency was also coming from inside the counting hall from Chandankiyari (S.C.) Assembly Constituency several times. Such sort of entry of unauthorised persons is a clear violation of Rule 53 of the Rules and the Order No. 464/E 5001/94/4706 dated 31.8.1994. 8. Lastly, it has been contended by the election petitioner that large number of votes cast in favour of the election petitioner had been illegally rejected. Such sort of entry of unauthorised persons is a clear violation of Rule 53 of the Rules and the Order No. 464/E 5001/94/4706 dated 31.8.1994. 8. Lastly, it has been contended by the election petitioner that large number of votes cast in favour of the election petitioner had been illegally rejected. The ballots wherein there was round seal had been illegally rejected but those round seals were provided by the respective Presiding Officers to the voters for marking seal. So there was no fault on the part of the voters to use that seal but the ballots having such round seal had been rejected illegally and about 200 such votes cast in favour of the petitioner being rejected made the election petitioner failure in result. It has also been contended that in the 7th round of counting, the petitioner had obtained 4795 votes but afterwards it was stated that he received only 4495 votes which caused the election petition to loose the election by a margin of 126 votes. It was also the case of the election petitioner that he was once called along with his election Agent by the Returning Officer after counting was over and said that he had won the election by 126 votes but afterwards when the result was announced, he was shown to have lost the election. On these allegations, as mentioned above, the election petitioner has prayed for declaration that election of respondent No. 1 is void and also to make further declaration that the petitioner has been duly elected from the above mentioned Assembly Constituency. 9. This election petition has been contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing written statement stating, inter-alia, that the election petition is not maintainable as there was non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 80 81 82 and 117 of the Act. His contention is that bundle of facts which have been enumerated in the election petition did not constitute a cause of action and the election petition is so vague as it does not conform the Order VI. Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the very inception for the lack of cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the very inception for the lack of cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Material facts regarding allegation as required under the provision of the Act had not been placed in the election petition and hence the same is liable to be rejected. That factual aspect what has been stated has been denied categorically parawise by the respondent No. 1. Regarding non-mention of the election petitioner as an authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi), it is the contention of respondent No. 1 that ballot paper does not disclose the name of the party nor displaying to be made in the Polling Station required the names of the parties, only the candidates names and their symbols are being printed. The petitioner had been given the symbol of Twin Leaves which was admittedly the symbol of J.M.M. (Mardi). In that view of the matter, non-mention of the election petitioner as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) in the official form to be published in the Gazette which never materially affected the election as the petitioner could not show by any where that the voters-were concerned about the non-mentioning of party affiliation in the prescribed forms. So the question of materially affecting the election has no bearing. 10. Regarding non-displaying also, it has been contended that the list contained the names in both the leaves and both were hung on each and every polling station and in that way, the voters were very free to see the names of their candidates of choice and could cast their votes. If there was any such non-display, then the petitioner could have raised objection at the earliest opportunity but now there it has been stated in the election petition that any such objection has been raised by him either of non-displaying or of non mentioning of his party affiliation. As per allegation regarding counting, there is no material given except very vague statements made in the different paragraphs of the election petition and when material facts had not been given, there was no scope for respondent No. 1 to answer the allegation in its proper perspective. 11. As per allegation regarding counting, there is no material given except very vague statements made in the different paragraphs of the election petition and when material facts had not been given, there was no scope for respondent No. 1 to answer the allegation in its proper perspective. 11. It is the contention of the respondent that up to the last stage of counting the petitioner was of the hope arid expectation that he would win the election but when he lost then by making fishing searches he made out grounds for filing this election petition when no objection was raised before the Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, Central Observer or the Election Commission of India in course of country or after the counting was over. Hence, prayer has been made to dismiss the election petition on the ground of maintainability alone and also on factual aspect. 12. Another respondent, namely respondent No 5 had also filed a written statement but his written statement is nothing but to support the cause of the election petitioner only. Nothing new has been stated. Only parawise the election petition has been supported by the respondent No. 5. 13. Along with the written statement filed by the returned candidate (Gour Harijan), an application has been filed on 24.6.1996 itself under Secs. 83(1) and 86(1) of the Act read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on 6.8.1996, an application was filed for deciding the preliminary issue of the maintainability of the election petition. After the evidence was over, the election petitioner filed a petition for inspection of the ballot papers on 21.3.1997 under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 100(i)(d)(iii), 101 and 102 of the Act and under Rules 93 of the Rules. 14. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as mentioned above, this Court by order dated 24.11.1995 had framed the following issues: (1) Whether the election petition is maintainable in its present form? (2) Whether the petitioner suffered loss due to deprivation of symbols of J.M.M. (Mardi) in his favour by the Election Commission, although the same was sought for in Forms A and B? (3) Whether there was any illegality and irregularity in not complying with the Rule 31(1)(b) of the Election Rules, 1961 and also Rule 10(i) of Form 7A? (2) Whether the petitioner suffered loss due to deprivation of symbols of J.M.M. (Mardi) in his favour by the Election Commission, although the same was sought for in Forms A and B? (3) Whether there was any illegality and irregularity in not complying with the Rule 31(1)(b) of the Election Rules, 1961 and also Rule 10(i) of Form 7A? To what other relief(s), if any, the petitioner is entitled? 15. Regarding the petition filed at the very initiation for deciding issue No. (1) as preliminary issue, this Court passed an order that considering the nature and circumstances of the case, all the issues including the maintainability issue would be heard together and not the maintainability issue as a preliminary issue, vide order dated 9.7.1996. After the evidence was over when the petition for inspection of the rejected ballot papers were filed, the same was kept in abeyance for consideration at the time of argument vide order dated 21.5.1997, as, such petition could not be heard earlier when the maintainability issue was also earlier ordered be heard along with other issues. 16. For and on behalf of the election petition, as many as nine witnesses have been examined P.W. 1 is Chandrakant Mahto. He was a supporter and campaigner for and on behalf of the election petitioner. He stated that in Booth No. 133, the display list did not include the name of Haru Rajwar and for such non-display, there was definitely a loss of vote in favour of Haru Rajwar but in the same breath he stated that for himself there was not difficulty, He also stated that during the course of campaign, they were accosted by the voters why Haru Rajwar was shown as an independent candidate and not J.M.M. (Mardi) but he stated on the Courts query being made that he has got nothing to show either by document or by any other paper that Haru Rajwar was an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) Group. P.W. 2 (Janki Mahto) was a Polling Agent of the election petitioner of Booth No. 131. P.W. 2 (Janki Mahto) was a Polling Agent of the election petitioner of Booth No. 131. According to him, he was not allowed to enter into the polling Booth by the Presiding Officer upto 2 p.m. but when Haru Rajwar visited the polling booth, then and then only, he was allowed to enter at 2 p.m. but on Courts query, he had admitted that he had nothing to show that he was appointed as Polling Agent of Haru Rajwar in booth No. 131. P.W. 3 Jai Prakash Mahatha is a member of J.M.M. (Mardi). According to him, Haru Rajwar was the official candidate along with other candidates in the different. Assembly Constituencies such as Sindri, Tundi Ramgarh, Mandu, etc. etc. According to him J.M.M. (Mardi) especially the election petitioner had to face the set back when he was shown as an independent candidate although using the symbol of J.M.M. (Mardi) while fighting Assembly election. He also stated that in the 7th round of counting, there was bungling and as such if proper announcement was there after consideration of 7th round of counting of votes, then the respondent could not have been declared as returned candidate but in the cross-examination, he stated that he was not present in the counting hall, so his evidence is only a hearsay. He has also stated that J.M.M. (Mardi) has not raised any objection in writing either before the Election Commission or before the local authority regarding non-showing of the petitioner as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and that the display of Polling booth did not contain the name of the election petitioner, P.W. 4 Amrit Mahto is another member of J.M.M. (Mardi). He also took part in the campaign of election for and on behalf of the election petitioner Haru Rajwar. He had a feeling that the supporters of J.M.M. (Mardi) were reluctant to cast vote in favour of the election petitioner as he was not shown as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi). He further stated that he was a Polling Agent on the election petitioner in booth No. 125 but he was not allowed to enter in the booth by the Presiding Officer on the ground that they had not officially received any signed paper of the election petitioner but afterwards he was made to enter in the polling booth after the visit of the election petitioner. He also stated that proper display was not there regarding the name of the election petitioner in front of the polling station. He said that he raised objection before the Presiding Officer, but the same had not been paid heed to P.W. 5 is Mani Chandra Mahto. He had also campaigned in the election for and on behalf of Haru Rajwar. According to him, the supporters of Haru Rajwar could not cast their votes in favour of him as his name was not being displayed. He also stated that the petitioner not being shown as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi), there was confusion in the mind of the votes and by that way, he lost about 200-300 votes. He said that whatever objections they had raised were all oral and there was no such objection in writing either before or after the election or at the time of counting. P.W. 6 Ajit Kumar Mahto was a counting agent of the election petitioner in Table No. 2. He made various allegations regarding the irregularity in the process of counting but those evidence have got no value as there was no such pleadings in the election petition. He said that bundle of 25 ballots in respect of the election petitioner contained more than 25 while that of returned candidate (Gaur Harijan) contained less than it, that pigeon hole did not have proper accommodation etc. He said that after the counting was over, the election petitioner had been called by the Assistant Returning Officer and had declared that he had won the election but final declaration was still then awaiting. This sort of allegation were not there in the election petition itself. P.W. 7 Ram Kinkar Mahto is a supporter of J.M.M. (Mardi) and he has also deposed in the same line as that of P.W. 6. P.W. 8 Saligaram Prasad Singh is the election agent of the election petitioner. In examination-in-chief, he made various allegations even outside the scope of the election petition itself. He has stated that when Polling Agents were appointed by the election petitioner unfortunately, the signature did not reach the booth, in time and as such there was delay in entering of the polling agents in the booths. He further stated that booth No. 55, some ballots were found lying outside the booth. He has stated that when Polling Agents were appointed by the election petitioner unfortunately, the signature did not reach the booth, in time and as such there was delay in entering of the polling agents in the booths. He further stated that booth No. 55, some ballots were found lying outside the booth. Besides supporting the election petition, some more things outside the election petition has been stated by him. His evidence has got nothing more to be stated. P.W. 9 (Haru Rajwar) is the election petitioner and he has given evidence in support of his election petition. 17. On the other hand, from the respondents side, five witnesses have been examined. D.W. 1 is Rakho Hari Mahtha. He was the counting agent of respondent No. 1 in table No. 3 and he was the polling agent of respondent No. 1 in booth No. 134. He stated that there was no anomaly during the whole process of election and the respondent No. 1 had been validly elected and only after the declaration of his result the petitioner with his supporters are making all frivolous allegations to make a ground for filing the election petition. D.W. 2 Ankul Chandra Jha was the another counting agent of respondent No. 1. He was at Table No. 8. He has also denied all allegations made in the election petition. According to him, the names of the candidates were displayed in all the booths by hanging two sheets of papers, one sheet contained the names of seven candidates and the other sheet contained the names of two candidates. There was no denial of his statement in the cross-examination. D.W. 3 Balram Das is the another counting agent of respondent No. 1 in Table No. 5 and his evidence is also on the same line as that of D.Ws. 1 and 2. The whole allegation of the election petitioner has been denied. D.W. 4 Manoj Kumar Bhagat is also the counting agent of respondent No. 1 in Table No. 10. All allegations brought by the election petitioner has been specifically denied and the lengthy cross-examination could not dislodge this witness. D.W. is Gaur Harijan is respondent No. 1, returned candidate. He has also denied the allegations brought in the election petition. Finding 18. All allegations brought by the election petitioner has been specifically denied and the lengthy cross-examination could not dislodge this witness. D.W. is Gaur Harijan is respondent No. 1, returned candidate. He has also denied the allegations brought in the election petition. Finding 18. In this election petition, although various allegations have been made in the election petition for setting aside the election and for declaration of the election petitioner as a returned candidate but mainly three points have been urged at the time of trial: (i) Non-displaying of the list of candidates in the Polling Booths. (ii) Although the petitioner was an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) he was not mentioned so against his candidature and he was shown as an independent candidate. (iii) Bungling in course of counting in the various ways, such as, illegal rejection of votes intermittently of validly votes cast in favour of the petitioner with that of returned candidate etc., etc. 19. There were other allegations also in the election petition to the effect that some ballots were found lying outside the booth and a constable get the same and it was published in the Newspaper, but on that point on evidence, nothing of the sort has been adduced nor this point has been argued from the side of the election-petitioner. Further point has been taken to the effect that Form No. 16 of various booths as recorded could not disclose the correct votes being counted and on the basis of Form No. 16, the same apparently discloses that there were missing votes in some of the booths and there were some more ballots found, than what has been cast in the booth, but all those were not considered at the time of counting. On this point, in the written statement, it was specifically mentioned that Part II of Form No. 16 had never been proved and that part only discloses in the printed proforma regarding the votes being received in the ballat boxes from the booth for the purpose of counting. On this, no reply could be found except Part I of the Proforma in some of the booths had been filed and exhibited that too not by any officials in the electioneering. On this, no reply could be found except Part I of the Proforma in some of the booths had been filed and exhibited that too not by any officials in the electioneering. Part II had not been brought for consideration and oral evidence is very scanty in that respect, Another point was raised that the polling agents got entry into the different booths belatedly was raised that the Polling agents got entry into the different booths belatedly due to negligence of the Returning Officer when the agents had to remain outside the booth till the election petitioner visited the booths and got them entered. There is allegation to the effect that the signature of the respective polling agents have not been verified and, as such, their entry was restricted and when the candidate had verified the signatures then only entry was allowed but at the belated stage as the election had already been started. This point has also not been pressed at the time of arguments, intentionally and purposely as the evidence disclosed that the laches and detects lay with the election petitioner himself when he had not verified the signatures of the polling agents at the earliest. Moreover, no Presiding Officer of any booth had been examined to give the correct picture from the side of the election petitioner. It appears that his point was used only for the purpose of making a ground for challenging the election and finding being trapped by their own evidence, the same had not been pressed at the time of argument. Thus, practically the points formulated above were the only points for the purpose of decision of this election petition and those will be taken up issue wise. 20. Issue No. 1.-Maintainability issue has been pressed from the very beginning from the side of the respondent, returned candidate as, according to the respondent, the election petition can be thrown out on this issue alone as the same is not in proper form as required under Secs. 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Act. 21. The election petition has been presented within 45 days from the date of result and this point has not been pressed from any of the parties, hence/the election petition is not barred by limitation and it was properly presented as required under Sec. 81 of the Act. 22. 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Act. 21. The election petition has been presented within 45 days from the date of result and this point has not been pressed from any of the parties, hence/the election petition is not barred by limitation and it was properly presented as required under Sec. 81 of the Act. 22. In this election petition, there is no allegation of corrupt practice but as the petitioner has not only claimed for setting aside of the election of the returned candidate but he has also prayed for declaring himself to be a returned one, as such, the election petitioner as required under Sec. 82(A) has made all the candidates who were in the fray as party respondents in the case. The most challenge is with regard to the contents of the election petition under Sec. 83 of the Act. As already mentioned, there is no allegation corrupt practice in the election petition and, as such, for the purpose of contents, Sec. 84(1)(A) is only applicable wherein it has been provided that the election petition shall contain concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. On this concise statement, it is the contention of Mr. R.K. Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the election petition is lacking in concise statement regarding the allegations being brought. The first allegation as has been mentioned is with regard to non-display of the names of candidates under the different Polling booths which had caused the election petition and it has been stated in paragraph 18 that because of such non-display, 2500 voters could not cast their votes in favour of the petitioner. Those paragraphs have been if affidavited by the election petitioner himself that the averments made in those facts are true to his knowledge. 1 find that the concise statement as required under the law on this allegation has been properly made. Regarding other allegation of non-allowing the election petition to represent as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) have been elaborately stated from paragraphs 6 to 13 of the election petition and all facts have been stated as required under the law. 1 find that the concise statement as required under the law on this allegation has been properly made. Regarding other allegation of non-allowing the election petition to represent as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) have been elaborately stated from paragraphs 6 to 13 of the election petition and all facts have been stated as required under the law. It cannot be said that those facts have not been properly stated or affidavited and for those statements, the petitioner is not required to file or swear affidavit under Form No. 25 as those allegation do not constitute any allegation on corrupt practice, but regarding the third allegation, as to the bunglings in the counting, no specific averment have been made in the election petition except that some Assistant Returning Officers attached to the another constituency had visited the counting hall and Samresh Singh had also occasionally visited the election hall causing the counting null and void as unauthorised persons entry in the counting hall is totally banned under the Election Rules. In Paragraph 36 onwards, it has been stated that the votes were illegally rejected when there were proper seals but no break up has been given as to which round of counting, rejections were made illegally. It has also not been stated as to how much votes which were cast in favour of the election petitioner had been illegally rejected. The same had not been stated in course of evidence also. It has only been stated in the election petition that in the last round of counting, the petitioner had obtained 4795 votes but he was shown less as 4495 votes only which caused the loss of the election by him by a margin of 174 votes, but no break up or specification has been given. As regards receipt of 4795 votes also by the election petitioner, no break up either table wise or round wise and no evidence has also been given to that effect. Moreover, in the prayer portion of the election petition, there is no relief claimed for recounting of the votes. As regards receipt of 4795 votes also by the election petitioner, no break up either table wise or round wise and no evidence has also been given to that effect. Moreover, in the prayer portion of the election petition, there is no relief claimed for recounting of the votes. Generally when the allegation of bunglings in the course of counting is taken then always there, remains a prayer for recounting and when the prayer of recounting is not there, then such sort of allegation in the course of counting remains redundant having no value and the petition filed under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 93 of the Rules has no bearing in the present case. Thus, the allegation of bungling in course of counting has not been specifically averred and no specific materials have been supplied so that the respondent can give specific reply. And as such because of vagueness on the allegation of bungling in the counting, the election petition is not maintainable and for that purpose, specific issue has also not been framed with regard to miscounting of votes. Hence, this issue is decided in the affirmative in respect of the first two grounds of challenging the election but in the negative in respect of miscounting or recounting; Thus the issue is answered accordingly. Practically as a revealed from the records and the evidence adduced, it can be well inferred that the petitioner was very hopeful of returning upto the last round of counting but when found to have lost the election by a short margin, he started fishing to search out grounds for filing the election petition. 23. Issue No. II:- According to the petitioner, he was the authorised candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and as required, as per paragraph 13 of the said Order, he submitted necessary forms A and B before the Returning Officer being signed by the authorised persons of the party so that the petitioner could be duly set up as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi). Those forms have been annexed as Annexures 2-A and 2-B respectively in the election petition. Those forms have been annexed as Annexures 2-A and 2-B respectively in the election petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the relevant time J.M.M. (Mardi) was registered unrecognised political party and the same was registered on 26.12.1994 with the Section Commission of India under Sec. 29A of the Act and the information of registration of J.M.M. (Mardi) was sent by the Election Commission of India to all the different Electoral Officers of the States and Union Territories and in support of which, the election petitioner annexed the letter dated 26.12.1994 as Annexure-3. The letter (Annexure-3) is addressed to Shri Krishna Marandi, the Member of Parliament as Chairman of J.M.M. (Mardi) by the Additional Secretary of the Election Commission of India. The law requires that when a party either recognised or unrecognised political party are being registered by the Election Commission, then the Election Commission is to send information to all the Returning Officers and the Election Officers of the State but nowhere any such letter has been proved and the fact such information had been sent by the Election Commission to the Returning Officer of this Constituency has been proved by any cogent evidence from the side of the petitioner, It appears that the nomination paper was submitted within the period from 16.1.1995 to 23.1.1995 and such registration was made only few days back in the month of December, 1994. Until and unless such informations are received by the Returning Officer or the District Election Officer, then rightly the petitioner had not been mentioned in Form 7A under Rule 10(1) of the rules as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and those forms, are as per rules to be kept in the office of the Returning Officer for the purpose of publication in the Gazette. When no evidence except this Annexure-3 being included in the election petition although not being formally proved, there is no scope to infer that Returning Officer committed error in not showing the petitioner as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi). Oral evidence has been given by the Election Agent, party men and by the election petitioner by making vague statements but no document has been proved that the Election Commission of India had sent information to the Returning Officer to the effect that J.M.M. (Mardi) had been registered as an unrecognised political party. Oral evidence has been given by the Election Agent, party men and by the election petitioner by making vague statements but no document has been proved that the Election Commission of India had sent information to the Returning Officer to the effect that J.M.M. (Mardi) had been registered as an unrecognised political party. In that view of the matter, the petitioner being shown as an independent candidate cannot be said to be illegal. Moreover, as per Symbol Rules, the petitioner had been given the Symbol of Twin Leaves and that Twin Leaves is the official symbol of J.M.M. (Mardi). 24 It is stated that the petitioner had not been allowed to make campaign as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) by the Returning Officer, but no evidence has been brought except the oral statement being made by the election petitioner and the election agent of the election petitioner. General voters that too of the S.C./S.T. Constituency are concerned, about symbols. When the symbol of Twin Leaves represent J.M.M. (Mardi), then by seeing the symbol, the voters could well understood that the election petitioner was representing J.M.M. (Mardi). It is stated that the voters had accosted the campaigners of the election petitioner that although twin leaves had been given to him but he had not been shown as a candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) and such accosting could be understood to be creating confusion in the minds of the voters and as such, according to the petitioner, he had lost about ten thousand votes when his supporters did not come to vote in his favour. Not a single witness has been produced from the side of the election petitioner to support the fact that he was in confusion as to whether the election petitioner was the official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) or not and as such he did not cast his vote. Only by mentioning the number of ten thousand votes to be not received by the election petitioner has got no bearing unless any evidence is shown to that effect. Public displaying is made only by mentioning the names of the candidates with their symbols, no party name is there. In the ballot paper also, parties names are never being inscribed. Hence, unless there is cogent evidence to that effect then the allegation that the petitioner had lost ten thousand votes as not being shown as J.M.M. (Mardi) has got no force. In the ballot paper also, parties names are never being inscribed. Hence, unless there is cogent evidence to that effect then the allegation that the petitioner had lost ten thousand votes as not being shown as J.M.M. (Mardi) has got no force. Taking for granted for arguments sake that irregularity cannot be a ground for setting aside the election unless it could be shown that this irregularity has materially affected the election as contained in Section 100 (1)(d) of the Act. I have already mentioned that the election petitioner could not give any evidence except oral statement in this respect. Moreover, it appears that the election petitioner had never raised any objection with regard to this irregularity caused in not showing him as an official candidate of J.M.M. (Mardi) before any authority at any point of time and the petitioner neither in the election petition nor in his evidence has stated a word regarding raising objection which shows that the petitioner has no grievance when he fought the fray as an independent candidate with symbol of J.M.M. (Mardi). Now after he has lost the election, he has taken this plea only to fight out the election petition. This issue is decided in the negative and against the election petitioner. 25. Issue No. III:- -As per Rule 31 (1)(b), it is required that in front of every booth, there should be proper display of the names of the candidates with their symbols so that the voters can see just before entering inside the booth to cast vote as per their choice. It remains admitted as per the evidence adduced by both the parties that there was displaying in the booths but as the displaying list contained seven names on the front page and two names on the over-leaf was not properly displayed. According to the election petitioner and his witnesses, those have been pasted in the wall on the entry of the election booth and as such the names of the over-leaf were invisible, but according to respondents witnesses, the displaying list was being hung in two sheets and as such there was proper visibility of both the leaves. It is no where there that such displaying was not there but, according to the election petitioner, although such displaying was there but the names of the petitioner and Haripad Das being on the over-leaf were not visible. It is no where there that such displaying was not there but, according to the election petitioner, although such displaying was there but the names of the petitioner and Haripad Das being on the over-leaf were not visible. 26 On the side of the election petitioner, witnesses have stated that display lists were pasted on the wall while according to the defence witnesses, those were being hung on the frontage of all the booths and the overleaf portion were being hung separately. It may be mentioned here that all the witnesses who have adduced evidence in the case both in respect of the election petitioner and that of the returned candidate are all partisan witnesses but no independent witness has been examined to support the allegation of the election petitioner. No polling officer or Presiding Officer had been called to depose and to clarify the position before this Court. It appears from the evidence of the election petitioner and his witnesses that they have raised objection of such improper displaying before the Presiding Officers of the respective booths, but such objections were only on oral and not in writing. No presiding Officer has been brought to support this fact of raising objection. When the evidence of both the parties on this issue remains balanced then the Court must seek independent witness for clarification but no independent witness has been examined not to speak of any official witness Moreover, only at the evidence stage, the election petitioner and his election agents stated that they raised objection regarding improper displaying before the Presiding Officers. But no such averments there in the election petition then it can be safely held that practically the election petitioner or though his agent had never raised any objection with regard to improper displaying and this ground has been taken only for challenging the election and the same is definitely an after-thought one. One witness has stated that although there was no displaying, he had no difficulty in casting his vote in favour of the election petitioner. In that view of the matter, the objection raised has got no validity in the eye of law. One witness has stated that although there was no displaying, he had no difficulty in casting his vote in favour of the election petitioner. In that view of the matter, the objection raised has got no validity in the eye of law. Moreover, It appears from the election petition itself that there: was no objection regarding the conduct of the election or regarding the process of counting till the last round of counting was over, was expecting to get elected as his position was better in all rounds of counting but in the last round when he was trailing behind then he started searching to find out the grounds to challenge the election. That there was bungling in the last round of counting has not been properly depicted either in the pleadings or in the oral evidence, hence this ground has got no legal validity and, as such, this issue is decided in the negative. 27. I have already mentioned that there was no prayer from the side of the election petitioner for recounting due to irregularities or mal-practice being indulged in the process of counting. In the election petition also there was no proper materials being Supplied as required under the law for the purpose of recounting and on that ground it has already been held that the election petition is not maintainable on the ground of recounting. When the ground of recounting is not tenable in the eye of law and the election petition is held to be not maintainable on that ground, then the petition filed by the election petitioner on 21.3.1997 under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Secs. 101(d)(iii), 101 and 102 of the Act read with Rule 93 of the Election Conduct Rules for the purpose of inspection of documents becomes redundant and hence liable to be rejected which I do accordingly. 28. In the result, this election petition, as per the discussions and the decisions on the issues mentioned above, is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.