Bal Mukund Dewangan Vs. Pratima Chandrakar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2000
Petitioner: Bal Mukund Dewangan
Respondent: Pratima Chandrakar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2000
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2001
Head Note:
ELECTION
Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 57 – Applicability – Allegation of no voting between 11 a.m. to 1:35 p.m. – Local panchayat secretary allegedly sitting in polling booth and distributing ballot papers folded in such a manner that votes were likely to be invalid – Evidence showing said secretary having left at 10.00 a.m. – Interruption thereafter – Polling officer removed at 1:30 p.m. Held that the interruption thereafter was not for sufficient cause. Election petition rightly dismissed. (Paras 2, 3, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is an appeal in an election petition. The appellant was the election petitioner. He lost the election to the assembly constituency no. 166, Khertha, district Durg, Madhya Pradesh, to the first respondent by a margin of 158 votes.
2. Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the whole election should be set aside on the ground of an alleged violation by reason of the non-adjournment of the poll in contravention of section 57 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The appellant and the respondent led evidence before the High Court and the following was established: At the polling station, Bijabhata, no voting took place between 11:00 a.m. and 1:35 p.m. This was for the reason that the presiding officer, one Mandavi, had permitted the local panchayat secretary, Virendra Sahu, to sit in the polling booth. Sahu had distributed ballot papers to voters so folded that the votes were likely to be rendered invalid. Mandavi had been replaced as a presiding officer at about 1:30 p.m. and thereafter polling had recommenced. In the cross-examination, one of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant, had revealed, that Sahu had left the polling station at about 10:00 a.m.
3. The High Court observed, “If Virendra Sahu whose presence and participation had been objected, had already left the polling station at 10 a.m. and there was no justification to adjourn the poll and direct repoll”. The High Court, therefore, found that section 57 was not attracted and the election petition was dismissed.
4. Section 57 provides for the adjournment of polls in emergencies. It says, so far as is relevant, that “if at an election the proceedings at any polling station are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause the presiding officer shall announce an adjournment of the poll”. The argument is that, in the present case, the poll should have been adjourned because the proceedings at the concerned polling station had been interrupted or obstructed on account of sufficient cause.
5. We are inclined to agree with the High Court that once Sahu had left the polling station, which he did at 10:00 a.m., the interruption or obstruction of the poll thereafter, between 11:00 a.m. and 1.35 p.m., cannot be said to be on account of sufficient cause.
6. The civil appeal is dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
1. This is an appeal in an election petition. The appellant was the election petitioner. He lost the election to the assembly constituency no. 166, Khertha, district Durg, Madhya Pradesh, to the first respondent by a margin of 158 votes.
2. Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the whole election should be set aside on the ground of an alleged violation by reason of the non-adjournment of the poll in contravention of section 57 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The appellant and the respondent led evidence before the High Court and the following was established: At the polling station, Bijabhata, no voting took place between 11:00 a.m. and 1:35 p.m. This was for the reason that the presiding officer, one Mandavi, had permitted the local panchayat secretary, Virendra Sahu, to sit in the polling booth. Sahu had distributed ballot papers to voters so folded that the votes were likely to be rendered invalid. Mandavi had been replaced as a presiding officer at about 1:30 p.m. and thereafter polling had recommenced. In the cross-examination, one of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant, had revealed, that Sahu had left the polling station at about 10:00 a.m.
3. The High Court observed, “If Virendra Sahu whose presence and participation had been objected, had already left the polling station at 10 a.m. and there was no justification to adjourn the poll and direct repoll”. The High Court, therefore, found that section 57 was not attracted and the election petition was dismissed.
4. Section 57 provides for the adjournment of polls in emergencies. It says, so far as is relevant, that “if at an election the proceedings at any polling station are interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence, or if at an election it is not possible to take the poll at any polling station on account of any natural calamity, or any other sufficient cause the presiding officer shall announce an adjournment of the poll”. The argument is that, in the present case, the poll should have been adjourned because the proceedings at the concerned polling station had been interrupted or obstructed on account of sufficient cause.
5. We are inclined to agree with the High Court that once Sahu had left the polling station, which he did at 10:00 a.m., the interruption or obstruction of the poll thereafter, between 11:00 a.m. and 1.35 p.m., cannot be said to be on account of sufficient cause.
6. The civil appeal is dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
