Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 801 (ORI)

Surendra Bhoi v. Election Officer-cum-B. D. O.

2018-11-19

BISWANATH RATH

body2018
ORDER 19.11.2018. Heard Shri A. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Nanda, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2. This writ petition involves an order passed in the election proceeding allowing an application to call for the Ballot Box for recounting purpose by the trial court. There is no dispute in the fact that both the parties have secured 567 votes and there is a drawing of lottery between the parties to find out either of the parties wins the election. It is based on the filing of the election dispute and at the time of evidence, the election petitioner therein filed an application for calling of the ballots as available under Annexure-4 to this petition involving Election Misc. Case No.2 of 2017 and also requesting the Court to direct the Election Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Jujumura Block to produce the used ballot papers for recounting purpose. Shri A. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order taking this Court to the grounds taken in the writ petition further by producing the copy of the evidence of two of the parties including that of the Election petitioner in the Court below, submitted that on reading of his own statement of the election petitioner makes out a case that the party lost has got 567 votes and no case is made out creating a situation for calling of the Ballot Box for recounting purpose. Shri Mishra also producing a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Abanti Jena versus Smt. Priyambada Jena and others as reported in AIR 2000 Orissa 156 taking this Court to the recording of evidence as well as the citation, submitted that for the evidence and for the law of land, there is no requirement for calling of the ballot paper for recounting purpose. Shri Nanda, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submitted that looking to the allegations made in the election case as well as the application made for the purpose vide Annexure-4, the election petitioner has a strong case and some statement heather and thither, cannot take away a right for asking for recounting the ballot papers. It is, under the circumstance, Shri Nanda prayed this Court for not interfering in the impugned order. It is, under the circumstance, Shri Nanda prayed this Court for not interfering in the impugned order. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the status of the parties in the election involved, this Court observes, interference in the recording of the statement of the election petitioner at this stage may damage the prospect of the election dispute involved herein. Further, looking to the situation that both the parties have secured 567 votes each, difference of one vote may create a lot of difference. In the fitness of the case, a recounting rather satisfying the allegation regarding difference and recounting of ballot papers, may help for arriving at an otherwise decision. Therefore, this Court finds, there is appropriate consideration of the application of the election petitioner and there is no infirmity in such direction. Resultantly, this Court declines to interfere in the impugned order. However, considering that the Election case is pending since 2017 and as evidence of both the parties to the election dispute is already closed, the Court below may enter into further action following the impugned order and dispose the election dispute within a period of three months at the maximum. This writ petition stands dismissed but however, with the above observation. Petition dismissed.