Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 550 (GAU)

Jiten Kalita v. Assam State Election Commission

2011-06-27

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2011
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The returned candidate in the election held for the office of member of No.4 Gabharu Anchalik Panchayat by the present petition has challenged the judgment dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1995 (in short the Act), directing recounting of votes of Table No.3 i.e. in respect of polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School, in Misc. (Election) Case No. 19/2008 registered on the basis of the election petition filed by the respondent No.6 questioning the election of the writ petitioner as member of the aforesaid Anchalik Panchayat. 2. The fact relevant for the purpose of the present case are that pursuant to the notification issued by the State Election Commission for holding the election, the writ petitioner, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed their nominations for election as member of No.4 Gabharu Anchalik Panchayat from No.3 Ushapur Gaon Panchayat. The election was accordingly held on 04.01.2008. After the counting of the votes was over, the result of the election was declared on 29.01.2008 declaring the writ petitioner as elected having secured 2761 votes. The formal notification relating to the result of the election was notified and published on 01.02.2008. The respondent No.6, who was nominated by Indian National Congress as candidate, after declaration of such result on 01.02.2008 objected such declaration contending inter alia that on 29.01.2008, after the counting was over a verbal declaration was made declaring him as elected, having secured maximum number of valid votes and also alleging anomalies in counting of votes. The State Election Commission was accordingly informed by the Deputy Commissioner about such objection, which however was not entertained on the advice of the State Election Commission on the ground that after declaration of the result, there cannot be any recounting of votes. The respondent No.6 then filed the election petition under Section 129(b) of the Act, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (Election) Petition No. 19/2008 before the Panchayat Election Tribunal at Tezpur, challenging the result of the election and praying for recounting of votes of Table No.3 i.e. in respect of polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School with a further prayer to declare the election of the writ petitioner as void and also to declare the respondent No.6, election petitioner, as duly elected. 3. 3. In the election petition filed by the respondent No.6, it has been alleged that after counting was over on 29.01.2008, the election petitioner was declared to have secured 2761 valid votes, but in the result notified and published on 01.02.2008 i.e. 3 days after such counting was over, the writ petitioner was shown to have secured 2761 valid votes and accordingly he was declared as elected. It has also been alleged that there were anomalies in counting of votes in Table No.3 of the aforesaid polling station, which is apparent from the ballot paper account submitted by the Presiding Officer, wherefrom it appears that total 537 ballot papers were used but in the result declared the total number of votes cast in respect of the said polling station was shown as 335. That apart according to the election petitioner though initially the counting official in the result of counting submitted in Form No. XXVIII(C) in respect of the said polling station shown the election petitioner to have secured 208 votes and by the writ petitioner 30 votes, the same were subsequently scored out and 33 and 222 votes were subsequently shown to have secured by the election petitioner and the writ petitioner respectively. It is also the contention of the election petitioner that the anomalies relating to the counting in respect of the said polling station is also evident from the said result of the counting as the counting official has recorded that he found 299 valid votes out of 235 votes found in the ballot box, which is nothing but absurd. 4. The election petition was contested by the writ petitioner/respondent No.2 in the election petition by filing written statement contending inter alia that the counting was held properly and the result was declared accordingly declaring him as elected. It has also been contended that the election petitioner at no point of time raised any objection, during the process of counting or before declaration of the result alleging any anomalies in counting and the election petitioner by filing the election petition invites the Tribunal to make a roving enquiry, which is not permissible in law. It has also been contended that the election petitioner at no point of time raised any objection, during the process of counting or before declaration of the result alleging any anomalies in counting and the election petitioner by filing the election petition invites the Tribunal to make a roving enquiry, which is not permissible in law. The Returning Officer i.e. the Deputy Commissioner also filed the objection to the prayer for recounting contending inter alia that there were no anomalies in the counting and the writ petitioner was found to have secured 2761 valid votes as against 2561 valid votes secured by the election petitioner, accordingly he was declared as elected. The Returning Officer, however, in paragraph 6 of the objection has stated that as per the ballot paper accounts, 537 votes were polled in polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.R School and the number of ballot papers found in the ballot box at the time of counting was 535. At the same breathe, the Returning Officer has also stated that according to the result of the counting prepared by the Counting Supervisor, 335 nos. of ballot papers were found in the ballot box, which was, however, wrongly recorded as 235. Nothing, however, has been stated relating to the discrepancies found between the ballot paper account and result of the counting prepared by the Counting Supervisor. The Returning Officer has also admitted in the objection that the election petitioner did file the application seeking recounting, which was ultimately not allowed on the basis of the direction of the State Election Commission, as the recounting is not permissible after the declaration of the result. 5. In the proceeding before the Election Tribunal, certified copies of certain documents were filed by the election petitioner. A notice to admit the documents as required under Order 12 Rule 2 of the CPC was also given to the Returning Officer to admit ballot paper account in Form No.XXII, result of counting in Form No. XXVIII(C), result sheet in Form No. XXIX(C) and the result of the election issued under Rule 44(7) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules in Form No. XXX(C), pertaining to the aforesaid polling station as well as the election, certified copies of which were filed by the election petitioner in the election petition. The said notice was issued by the Election Tribunal on 07.06.2008, on the basis of the application filed by the election petitioner. The Returning Officer pursuant to such notice filed the affidavit on 07.07.2008 admitting those documents. The returned candidate/writ petitioner on 27.06.2008 also filed an application to call for the aforesaid documents in original apart from others from the custody of the Returning Officer, which were accordingly produced and marked as exhibits by the witnesses examined in the proceeding. 6. The election petitioner in support of the election petition examined himself as P W1. The returned candidate/writ petitioner examined himself as DW-1 apart from examining Sri Pradip Das who also contested the said election as the nominee of Bharatiya Janata Party as DW-2 and Sri Lakshmi Das, the election agent of the returned candidate/writ petitioner as DW-3. The Returning Officer also examined Smt. Gitanjali Dutta, Branch Officer, Panchayat Election, Tezpur, as DW-4,. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the respective parties. The election petitioner, apart from others, proved the result of election submitted in Form No. XXX(C) as Ext.-1, ballot paper account in Form No. XXII as Ext.-2, result of the counting in Form No. XXVIII(C) as Ext.-3, result sheet with details of votes found in different polling stations in Form No. XXIX(C) as Ext.-4, application dated 01.02.2008 filed by him for recounting as Ext.-5, apart from other documents. Those documents were also proved in original by DW-4 during her examination and marked as exhibits. The Election Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary, directed recounting of votes in respect of polling station No. 3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School, as aforesaid. Hence the present petition. 7. I have heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, State Election Commission, Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, the returned candidate. 8. Mr. Hence the present petition. 7. I have heard Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, State Election Commission, Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, the returned candidate. 8. Mr. Takukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the basis on which the Election Tribunal has directed recounting of votes in respect of 3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School polling station, is the ballot paper accounts in Form No. XXII (Ext.-2/Ext.-13) and also the result sheet in Form No. XXIX (C) (Ext.-4), which are being not admissible in evidence, having not been proved the contents thereof by the makers of the documents, cannot be the basis for directing recounting of votes. It has also been submitted that the result of the counting in Form No. XXVIII (C) (Ext. -3), which was also taken into consideration by the Election Tribunal, in issuing such direction, is not admissible in evidence as the Counting Supervisor, who prepared the document was not examined to prove the said document. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction can interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, since the inadmissible evidences were taken into consideration while passing the judgment and order. The learned counsel further submits that it is a settled position of law that the preservation of secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle, which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it and as such the burden heavily lies on the election petitioner to adduce evidence of such a compulsive nature to reach a prima facie satisfaction that there is adequate justification for secrecy of the ballot being breached. The learned counsel submits that apart from the aforesaid documents, which were marked as exhibits and contents of which were not proved by adducing the evidence of the makers of those documents, there was no other materials before the Election Tribunal to direct a recounting and thereby breach the secrecy of the ballot. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal needs to be set aside in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal needs to be set aside in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 and in P. K. K. Shamsudeen Vs. K. A. M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 640 . 9. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner/respondent No.6 supporting the judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal directing recounting of votes has submitted that the Ext. -2/Ext-13, Ext. -3 and Ext.-4 i.e., the ballot paper account in Form No. XXII, result of recounting in Form No. XXVIII (C) and result sheet in Form No. XXIX (C), respectively, apart from other documents, which were marked as exhibits, were duly proved by the Branch Officer of Panchayat Election Branch, who was examined as DW-4 in the proceeding before the Tribunal. It has also been submitted that certified copies of those documents were proved by the election petitioner and marked as exhibits without any objection from any of the parties including the writ petitioner/returned candidate. The learned counsel further submits that the contents of those documents, apart from the other documents, were also proved by the Branch Officer (DW-4). That apart, it is submitted that pursuant to the notice issued under Order 12 Rule 2 of the CPC, the Returning Officer admitted the existence and contents of those original documents, which were called for produced by the Returning Officer and proved by DW-4, at the instance of the writ petitioner/returned candidate, who never challenged the existence or genuineness of those documents at any point of time. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that those documents were admissible in evidence and rightly taken into consideration by the Election Tribunal in directing recounting of votes in respect of 3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L. P. School polling station. Mr. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that those documents were admissible in evidence and rightly taken into consideration by the Election Tribunal in directing recounting of votes in respect of 3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L. P. School polling station. Mr. Singh drawing attention of this Court to the result of counting in Form No. XXVIII (C), in respect of the aforesaid polling station, which was marked as Ext.-3, has submitted that anomalies in the counting is evident from the said document as the Counting Supervisor initially recorded that the writ petitioner secured 30 votes and the respondent No.6 secured 208 votes, which were subsequently changed to 202 and 33 votes, respectively. It is also submitted that while the Counting Supervisor recorded that 235 ballot papers were found in the ballot box, he found 299 valid votes apart from 36 doubtful votes, which is nothing but the absurdity. The learned counsel further submits that it is evident from the said document that the figure 535 was subsequently changed to 235. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that no illegality has been committed by the Election Tribunal requiring issuance of writ of certiorari, since the election petitioner could prove by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that there were discrepancies in the counting, which requires breach of the secrecy of ballot. 10. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has submitted that though the election petitioner filed an application for recounting of votes before the Returning Officer, the same, however, could not be considered as the result of the election has already been declared. The learned counsel submits that if the Court finds that there were illegalities or irregularities in the counting of votes and as such the recounting is necessary, the same shall definitely be done. Mrs. Phukan, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents has also concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appearing parties and also perused the records of Misc. (Election) Petition No. 19/2008 including the impugned judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal. 12. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appearing parties and also perused the records of Misc. (Election) Petition No. 19/2008 including the impugned judgment and order passed by the Election Tribunal. 12. The Election Tribunal has directed recounting of votes in respect of polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School mainly on the basis of the Ext.-2/Ext-13, ballot paper accounts in Form No. XXII; Ext.-3 - the result of counting in respect of aforesaid polling station submitted in Form No. XXVIII (C) and Ext.-4 i.e. the final result sheet reflecting the votes received by different candidates in different polling stations, submitted in Form No. XXIX(C). The Election Tribunal has also found that those documents were proved including contents thereof by DW-4, originals of which were produced by the Returning Officer as called for by the writ petitioner/returned candidate. 13. In the election held for the office of the member of Gabharu Anchalik Panchayat result was declared on 01.02.2008 showing the writ petitioner/returned candidate to have secured 2694 votes as against the respondent No.6/election petitioner 2561 i.e. the difference of 133 votes. It appears from the ballot paper account in Form No. XXII(Ext-2/Ext-13) that the Counting Official on the date of counting i.e. on 29.01.2008 found 535 used ballot papers in polling station No. 3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School. It has also been recorded in the document that there is difference of 2(two) ballot papers, as in the ballot paper account submitted by the Presiding Officer on the date of polling i.e. on 04.01.2008 it has been mentioned that the total ballot papers in the ballot box are 537. The Counting Supervisor in the result of counting submitted by him in Form No. XXVIII(C) in respect of the said polling station mentioned the number of votes polled by each of the 5 (five) candidates who contested the election. It appears from the said document being Ext.-3 that the Counting Supervisor initially recorded that the writ petitioner/returned candidate secured 30 votes, the respondent No.6/election petitioner secured 226 votes, Tarun Das 25 votes and Banshidhar Gogoi 8 votes. The said figures, however, were changed to 202, 33, 35,12 and 17 respectively. The Counting Supervisor in the said Form No. XXVIII(C) had initially recorded that 535 votes were found in the ballot box, out of which 499 were valid votes and 36 were doubtful votes. The said figures, however, were changed to 202, 33, 35,12 and 17 respectively. The Counting Supervisor in the said Form No. XXVIII(C) had initially recorded that 535 votes were found in the ballot box, out of which 499 were valid votes and 36 were doubtful votes. The number of ballot papers found as well as the valid votes were however subsequently changed to 235 and 299 respectively. It is very strange, how the Counting Supervisor could find 299 valid votes out of 235 ballot papers found in the ballot box, which clearly indicates the manipulation as well as the irregularities in the process of counting of votes in respect of polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika ChuburiL.P. School. 14. The election petitioner in the proceeding before the Tribunal filed the certified copies of those documents, which are public documents and also proved the same. Those were also marked as exhibits. The election petitioner has also spoken about the contents of those documents. Those documents were marked as exhibits without any objection from the writ petitioner/returned candidate. That apart on the basis of the application filed by the election petitioner under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC, notice to admit those documents was issued to the Returning Officer, who accordingly, filed the affidavit admitting those documents. The writ petitioner/returned candidate has also filed the application to call for the original of those documents and accordingly the same was complied with by the Returning Officer. Those documents were also proved in original by the Branch Officer of Panchayat Election Branch (DW-4). The writ petitioner/returned candidate never at any point of time disputed the genuineness of those documents or the contents thereof, which were proved by DW-4. 15. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides how the contents of a document can be proved. It provides that the contents of the document may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 62 of the Evidence Act defines the primary evidence as document itself produced for inspection of the Court. Section 64 provides that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases where the secondary evidence is permissible under Section 65. Section 62 of the Evidence Act defines the primary evidence as document itself produced for inspection of the Court. Section 64 provides that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases where the secondary evidence is permissible under Section 65. Mere marking of a document as exhibit and proof of the handwriting of a document, however, would not tentamount to proof of the contents or the facts stated in the document, if the truth of the facts in a document is in issue. In that case mere proof of the handwriting or execution of the document would not furnish the evidence of the truth of the fact or contents of the document, which have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. 16. In the instant case, as discussed above, the writ petitioner/returned candidate never challenged the genuineness or otherwise of the documents proved as Ext.-2/Ext-13, Ext-3 and Ext.-4. No challenge has also been made relating to the existence of such documents as well as the contents thereof. Those documents in fact, were produced in original by the Returning Officer on the basis of the application filed by the writ petitioner/returned candidate and were proved by the DW-4, who is in charge of the Panchayat Election Department, who has also spoken about the contents of those documents. That apart those documents were marked as exhibits without any objection from the writ petitioner/returned candidate. DW-4 i.e. the Branch Officer has also not been cross-examined by the writ petitioner/returned candidate, on the contents of those documents. DW-4 who can vouchsafe for the truth of the contents of those documents has deposed about the genuineness as well as the contents of those documents. The Returning Officer, as noticed above, in the written objection filed against the election petition has also admitted the contents of those documents as well as the discrepancies found in the counting process. That being the position, it cannot be said that those documents are not admissible in evidence having not been approved by the competent person and also that the contents of those documents were not proved. 17. Order 12 Rule 2 of the CPC provides for issuance of notice to admit documents. Rule 6 of Order 12 even empowers a Court to deliver judgment on admission. 17. Order 12 Rule 2 of the CPC provides for issuance of notice to admit documents. Rule 6 of Order 12 even empowers a Court to deliver judgment on admission. Such admission, however, would be as against the person whom such notice to admit such document was issued, unless any person other than the person to whom such notice was issued in bound by such admission. As noticed above, the Returning Officer on receipt of the notice under Order 12 Rule 2 of the CPC filed the affidavit admitting those documents including the contents thereof. The original of the said documents were also produced before the Tribunal at the instance of the writ petitioner/returned candidate by the Returning Officer. That being the position, such admission would naturally bind the Returning Officer who maintained such records. The writ petitioner/returned candidate also never challenged the genuineness of those documents and also the contents thereof. That being the position, those documents cannot be held as inadmissible evidence. 18. The scope of interference of the decision of a Tribunal in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction by the High Court is limited. The High Court can issue a writ of certiorari for correcting the error of jurisdiction committed by the inferior Courts or Tribunal or if the order under challenge was passed by the Courts or Tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or where the Court or Tribunal refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. Such order passed by the Court or Tribunal can also be interfered with if passed without giving the opportunity of being heard to the party affected or where the procedure adopted is opposed to principles of natural justice. The jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court and hence the every findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ Court, but not an error of fact, however gave it may appear to be. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ Court, but not an error of fact, however gave it may appear to be. A decision given by the inferior Court or Tribunal can also be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court when there is no evidence on record to arrive at such decision or if such decision was arrived at by taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence [Syed Yakoob (supra)]. 19. The Apex Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra) while dealing with the election petition filed under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, has opined that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. It has also been opined that the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the materials placed by the election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made, as the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. In the said judgment it has also been held that the election petitioner must produce the cogent and reliable evidence to demonstrate that a prima facie case of a high decree of probability exists for recount of votes, so as to enable the Tribunal to direct the recount. In the instant case, as discussed above, the election petitioner could produce cogent, admissible and reliable evidence for issuance of a direction for recount. 20. That being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the Election Tribunal has rightly directed the recount of votes in respect of polling station No.3 Ka Madhya Barika Chuburi L.P. School, which order does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction. 21. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.