Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 318 (ORI)

MANJULATA SETHI v. SASMITA MAHALIK

2013-08-20

S.C.PARIJA

body2013
JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore, in Election Misc. Case No. 24 of 2012, rejecting the petitioner's application to call for the ballot papers, final result sheet and other documents from the Election Officer and to recount the ballot papers. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 contested the election for the post of Ward Member of Kalyani Gram Panchayat in the district of Balasore, which was held on 15.02.2012. In the result announced, the opposite party No. 1 was declared elected having secured 262 votes as against the present petitioner, who was shown to have secured 242 votes. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 was declared elected as Ward Member of Kalyani Gram Panchayat. 3. Being aggrieved by the result of the election, this petitioner filed Election Misc. Case No. 24 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balasore, wherein it was specifically pleaded that though this petitioner had secured 266 votes and opposite party No. 1 had secured 242 votes out of the total ballots numbering 544 of which 36 ballot papers were rejected, the Presiding Officer has wrongly declared the opposite party No. 1 as elected. It was further pleaded that as there was error in the recording of votes in the result sheet prepared by the Presiding Officer and on coming to realize the mistake, the Presiding Officer sent a letter addressed to the Election Officer for rectification of the result sheet relating to Kalyani Gram Panchayat. In the said letter dated 3.3.2012 it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner has got 266 votes whereas the opposite party No. 1 has got 242 votes and due to mistake he had mentioned the numbers erroneously, as he was mentally upset due to the illness of his father. However, the Election Officer did not carry out necessary rectification in the result of the petitioner. However, the Election Officer did not carry out necessary rectification in the result of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed in his election petition to call for the result sheet prepared by the Presiding Officer and the report sent to the Election Officer along with his letter dated 03.03.2012 for rectification of the result of the election and as the petitioner has secured majority of votes i.e. 266 votes, she be declared elected as Ward Member of Ward No. 1 of Kalyani Gram Panchayat, after counting of ballots casted. The petitioner filed several documents along with the election petition. 4. During hearing of the election petition, the petitioner adduced evidence in support of her pleadings in the election petition. The Presiding Officer filed his affidavit of evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C., wherein, he specifically stated that while preparing the result sheet, due to inadvertent mistake, the figure 266' was mentioned against the name of opposite party No. 1 and the figure 242' was mentioned against the name of present petitioner. In view of such evidence on record, the petitioner filed an application to call for the documents detailed therein in order to establish the fact that there has been an error in preparing the result sheet. 5. Learned Civil Judge by the impugned order dated 18.09.2012 has come to find that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence of a compulsive nature in order to prima facie satisfy the Court for directing recounting of votes and therefore an order for recounting of votes cannot be passed as a matter of course. Accordingly, learned Civil Judge has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner to call for the records detailed therein. 6. From the pleadings of the parties it is abundantly clear that the petitioner had specifically pleaded in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the election petition regarding the error in preparing the result sheet and had relied upon the letter of the Presiding Officer dated 03.03.2012, addressed to the Election Officer for rectification of the result sheet. Further, the evidence of the petitioner as well as that of the Presiding Officer clearly goes to show that there has been a mistake in preparing the result sheet and the votes polled by the petitioner has been shown against the name of opposite party No. 1 and vice-versa. Further, the evidence of the petitioner as well as that of the Presiding Officer clearly goes to show that there has been a mistake in preparing the result sheet and the votes polled by the petitioner has been shown against the name of opposite party No. 1 and vice-versa. In view of the material particulars on record, it can be safely be said that the documents called for by the petitioner are relevant and necessary for a just and proper adjudication of the election dispute. 7. For the reasons as aforestated, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge is quashed. The application filed by the petitioner calling for the documents detailed therein, as per Annexure-3 is allowed. 8. W.P. (C) is accordingly allowed. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Misc. Case No. 16287 of 2012 10. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, no order is required to be passed. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Allowed