JUDGMENT : NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.:–By this election petition, the election petitioner has challenged the election and declaration of respondent no.1 Ashok Kumar Yadav as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State in the Assembly Election held in the year 2010 from 86, Keoti Assembly Constituency of district Darbhanga. 2. As per the election petition, it was alleged that, in fact and in reality, the election petitioner secured the majority of valid votes and had held 286 more valid votes than respondent no.1, but while the election petitioner waited for formal declaration, apparently there was some manipulation made and respondent no.1 was then declared elected by a margin of 33 votes over the election petitioner. The election petitioner has alleged that the results were manipulated at the time when counting was going on, wherein some of votes polled in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of respondent no.1 and at the end of the counting the result sheet was manipulated changing the result in favour of respondent no.1. He further alleged that margin being small, the postal ballots ought to have been counted and if they were counted, the result would have changed. 3. Upon notice of this election petition, apart from others, respondent no.1 appeared and contested the claims of the election petitioner. In the written statement, respondent no.1, the winning candidate, clearly mentioned that there were no manipulations either in course of counting or at the end. It was stated that the election petitioner never protested at any point of time during the course of counting and only in the end when the election petitioner found himself having lost, he manufactured vague and unsubstantiated allegations demanding recounting. It was further stated in the written statement that the election petitioner has not pleaded material facts, materials to the issues raised and sought dismissal of the election petition in absence thereof. 4. Upon parties agreeing the following issues were framed by order dated 05.08.2011 :— (1) Whether the election petition, as framed and filed, is maintainable in law. (2) Whether the pleadings in the election petition being vague and frivolous, the election petition is fit to be dismissed in terms of the principles enshrined in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Whether the pleadings in the election petition being vague and frivolous, the election petition is fit to be dismissed in terms of the principles enshrined in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (3) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed in terms of Section 86 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 for non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Section 83 (1) (a) and 83 (1) (c) read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. (4) Whether illegalities and irregularities have been committed in the process of counting of ballot papers, as alleged in the election petition. If so, can it be said that it has materially affected the results of the election and if so whether it is a case in which recounting be ordered and results declared thereupon.” 5. It may be noted that initially it appeared that the election petitioner did not take this proceeding as initiated by him seriously, but subsequently after much loss of time, he started having interest in the matter. 6. In order to substantiate his allegation, the election petitioner has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 Abdul Mannan Ansari, P.W. 2 Ram Naresh Yaav and P.W. 5 Lakshman Yadav were examined as Counting Agents of the election petitioner. The election petitioner Faraz Fatmi examined himself as P.W.3. P.W. 4 is Md. Samsuzzoha, Election Agent of the election petitioner. 7. On behalf of respondent no.4, who was the contesting respondent, six witnesses were examined. R.W. 1 Sheo Shankar Jha, R.W. 2 Sanjay Kumar, R.W. 3 Visundeo Das, R.W. 4 Raman Kumar Jha and R.W. 5 Rajendra Chaupal were Counting Agents of respondent no.1 Ashok Kumar Yadav, the winning candidate, who examined himself as R.W.6. 8. On behalf of respondent no.1 Ashok Kumar Yadav, it was strenuously urged that the election petition lacks material facts and in absence of such pleadings, the election petition should be summarily dismissed. I will not go into this issue at this stage specially when the parties have proceeded with the trial and have agreed to lead evidence as noted above. 9. As noticed earlier, the case of the election petitioner, as sought to be put forward by him, was that on conclusion of the counting, he was told that he had won by margin of 286 votes. He was asked to wait for formal declaration. 9. As noticed earlier, the case of the election petitioner, as sought to be put forward by him, was that on conclusion of the counting, he was told that he had won by margin of 286 votes. He was asked to wait for formal declaration. In the meantime, some people entered the counting area and, thereafter, results were manipulated and formal declaration was made showing the election petitioner having lost by a narrow margin of 33 votes. Suffice to say that all the five witnesses, as examined on behalf of the election petitioner including himself, have maintained this story in their examination-in-chief made on affidavits, but on being asked in cross-examination as to whether there was any material at all to substantiate this allegation with reference to the records they had to admit that there was none. 10. On behalf of the election petitioner himself, Ext. 3 and Ext. 3/1 were brought on record being the round-wise, booth-wise counting result and the final result sheet, which had also been given to him on the day of counting itself. No discrepancy much less any overwriting or interpolation therein was pointed out much less how. Specific question put in cross-examination as to who manipulated, how manipulated, what are the documents to show manipulation and what are evidence in support thereof, their answers were in negative and nothing could be disclosed to substantiate the allegation. The only documents were Ext. 2, Ext.2/1, Ext. 2/2 and Ext. 4, which were all letters written on behalf of the election petitioner on 24.11.2010, the day of counting, after the counting was over merely stating that at the end results were manipulated and there should be recounting, but how and in what manner was never pointed out even at that stage. 11. It may be noted here that neither in the oral evidence on behalf of the election petitioner nor in his documentary evidence, there was any fact brought to show any counting manipulation in course of counting or at the end there were no protest much less written protest at the time of counting. As per the evidence, everything was fine till the counting was over when the election petitioner was allegedly told that he had won. Only thereafter results were allegedly manipulated. As per the evidence, everything was fine till the counting was over when the election petitioner was allegedly told that he had won. Only thereafter results were allegedly manipulated. What were the manipulations, who did it, how it was done and what was the manner in which it was done, are not even alleged much less substantiated with any material? As noted earlier, result sheets (Exts. 3 & 3/1) were undisputedly handed over to the election petitioner on the day of counting itself. He did not bring on record anything to show that the result sheets were wrong for any material or manipulated. 12. I may further notice that in the election petition, the election petitioner has urged that respondent no.1 was elected by a margin of 33 votes, but in the evidence the witnesses on behalf of the election petitioner maintained that the margin was 29 votes. There is allegation that postal ballots were not counted and if counted the result would have definitely changed. In this connection, I must note that firstly it has not been urged much less shown by any evidence as to whether the result would be materially affected if postal ballots were to be counted. It has not been brought on record or in evidence of any witness as to what were the number of postal ballots. 13. This controversy, in fact, stands resolved if one refers to Ext. 3/1, which is the final result sheet in Form 20. That would show that without counting the postal ballots, respondent no.1 had polled a total of 45,790 votes as against the election petitioner, who had obtained 44,757 votes. Thus, the margin of defeat was 33 votes. There were six postal ballots. In view of the winning margin of 33, there was no necessity to count the postal ballots as they were only six in number. Still they were counted. The result was that after counting the postal ballots, respondent no.1 Ashok Kumar Yadav polled 45,791 votes and the election petitioner polled 45,762 votes. The margin of defeat, thus, got reduced to 29. This clearly establishes that the election petitioner was aware that even if postal ballots had been counted, that would have made no difference in the result, still he chose to make allegation with regard to postal ballots not being counted and if counted would affect the result, which he knew, was not correct. This clearly establishes that the election petitioner was aware that even if postal ballots had been counted, that would have made no difference in the result, still he chose to make allegation with regard to postal ballots not being counted and if counted would affect the result, which he knew, was not correct. It may also be noted that Ext. 4 being the letter of Election Agent of the petitioner dated 24.11.2010 to the Returning Officer itself shows that it is then and there itself the election petitioner was given the booth-wise and round-wise results, but inspite of that he was not able to point out any discrepancy therein. 14. Thus, I find that the election petitioner has neither pleaded nor has been able to prove through cogent and reliable evidence, the material facts to show that there was any irregularity or illegality committed in the counting of votes or in preparation of the final results justifying any interference by this Court in any manner. 15. Thus, I find no merit in this election petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. ?