The Chhattisgarh High Court has partly allowed a writ petition and modified a tribunal order in an election dispute, while upholding the core finding that the respondent’s challenge to the vote count deserved a fresh look.
The petitioner had challenged a May 25, 2000 tribunal order that granted the election petition of respondent No. 5 and directed a recount of votes. The petitioner argued that an application for a recount should have been made immediately to the Returning Officer after results were declared, and that the tribunal had no business sending the ballots back to the same returning officer for recounting. The respondent countered that he had tried to make an oral request for a recount at the counting centre, and later went to the Returning Officer to hand in an application but the officer refused to accept it. Several witnesses supported the respondent’s account that counting slips were not supplied to all candidates at the time of counting.
After hearing the parties and examining witness testimony, the court found that the factual record supported the tribunal’s conclusion that mandatory procedures relating to supply of counting slips had not been followed. The court accepted the respondent’s assertion that he had attempted to present a recount application but the Returning Officer had refused to receive it. The judges observed that where a statutory avenue exists and the officer tasked with accepting an application declines to accept it, the complainant should not be penalised for the officer’s refusal. On that basis, the High Court agreed that the election petition had sufficient merit to require reconsideration of the vote count.
At the same time, the court stressed a separation of functions and corrected the tribunal’s remedial step. The bench held that the tribunal should not delegate its core duty by ordering the same authority that was alleged to have committed procedural lapses to carry out the recount. Recounting votes is an exercise of judicial fact-finding that the tribunal must itself supervise. To give effect to that principle while preserving the tribunal’s finding in favour of the respondent, the High Court modified the remedy. It directed the Election Tribunal, within seven days of receiving a copy of the High Court order, to secure the ballot boxes from their custodian, fix a hearing date, open the boxes in the presence of the parties and their representatives, and conduct the recount itself in accordance with law. The result of that recount must be declared and recorded as part of the tribunal’s judgment.
The writ petition was therefore allowed in part. The High Court maintained the tribunal’s decision to grant the election petition but required the tribunal to take direct responsibility for the recount process. There was no order as to costs.
Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 3
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 4585 of 2000, Asim Saha vs. Collector, Kanker and Ors. (28.11.2000)
Counsels:
For State: Shri Ranbir Singh, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 227
======
वर्तमान याचिका उस आदेश के विरुद्ध दायर की गई थी, जिसके तहत प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 5 की निर्वाचन याचिका स्वीकार की गई थी और मतों की पुनर्गणना (recount) का निर्देश दिया गया था।
न्यायालय ने माना कि प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 5 ने यह सिद्ध कर दिया कि उसने पुनर्गणना के लिए आवेदन रिटर्निंग अधिकारी को प्रस्तुत किया था, लेकिन उक्त रिटर्निंग अधिकारी ने वह आवेदन स्वीकार करने से इंकार कर दिया। इसलिए यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि न्यायाधिकरण (Tribunal) ने निर्वाचन याचिका स्वीकार करने और पुनर्गणना का आदेश देने में कोई गलती की।
न्यायालय ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि जब कुछ मतों की अस्वीकृति या स्वीकृति से संबंधित आपत्ति न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा स्वीकार कर ली जाती है, तब मतों की पुनर्गणना करना न्यायाधिकरण का सर्वोपरि (paramount) दायित्व बन जाता है। पुनर्गणना की शक्ति किसी तीसरे पक्ष को सौंपना उचित नहीं है, क्योंकि यह कार्य स्वयं न्यायाधिकरण को विधि के अनुसार करना चाहिए।
इसलिए, निर्वाचन याचिका की स्वीकृति को यथावत रखते हुए, न्यायालय ने यह निर्देश दिया कि न्यायाधिकरण सात दिनों के भीतर संबंधित मतपेटियों (ballot boxes) को संरक्षक से मंगाए और सभी पक्षों की उपस्थिति में मतों की पुनर्गणना करे तथा परिणाम को विधि के अनुसार घोषित करे। परिणामस्वरूप, याचिका आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार की गई।
