Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/1523/2001 of JAI LAL MALEKAR Vs STATE OF C.G. and ORS. on 21 November 2001
HIQH COUBI OF CHHATTISGARH sAT BILASPUR, W.P. ___^15^___ 2001» ^' .f^ L..^'^ r̂^ ^ ( PETIIION UNDQi S^TION 226/227 CCNSTIIUTION OF INDIA) . / . • • ... .. ; • •- PetitLoner t",/JallLaL Malekar S/0 Kishan Lal Non-Applicant* Mg^er Janapad, Dondi Lohara,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
.•^
^p
^.
IN THE i-DNOUBABLE HIQH COUBI OF CHHATTISGARH sAT BILASPUR, W.P. ___^15^___ 2001»
^'
([PETIIION][ UNDQi][ S^TION][ 226/227][ CCNSTIIUTION][ OF][ INDIA)][ .]
/.••.....;• •-.f^PetitLoner t",/JallLaLMalekar S/0 Kishan LalNon-Applicant*Mg^er Janapad, Dondi Lohara, Janpad,District Durg( Chhattisgarh ).Verms^'ftespondents s"lo^tate of chhattisgarh$>%'irough sSecretary s T®n.chayat,Raigur,2, Additional Collector, (Panchayat),Presiding Officer, Durg Distt,Durg ~C .attxsgarh«L..^'^te-^sy5. Retuming Officer, Panchayat,..<•»^•.%-y-~'Block Office, Qondi Lohara, Burg (CG).r^4,^Bilip Shanaa S/0 Nohan Lal Shanaa,R/0 Village - Chilhati, Post- Bharada,Tahsil Bondi Lohara, Oistt. Qurg,'n^( Candidate Jan&pad Area» No.18).(Applicant),WRIT PETITION UMDEB SMnSM;yAKTICLE 226/227CONSTITUTIGM/ OF'IN&IA FOR QUASHIK& 'mE ORQm PASSS) ON 25»07«2001.^/IN PAiCH^^ CASE MOO. -15-A/ 89(15) OF 2000-2001,^K">^P^""^^BY TH£ AIB3ITIONAL COLLECTOB. ( PANCHMA3?) DURG POR N^\€.^Mfrl^ ^;OUNTING OP VOTES OF K311.ING[BOOIH] S[ CB^TSE][ 1] ^[OF]f!L."i ' M^gl ~ ° -- ,{,.:-/&APAD P^CHAYAT DO I LOIiABA J^APiJ)ELE^TIOH2000<7!:
»• o &-« e
HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition No. 1523/2001
Jailal MalekarVersusState of Chhattisgarh and Others Before Hon'ble AAr. W.A.SHISHAK. Chief Justice Present None for the petitioner.ShriGautamBhaduri, learned6overnmentAdvocatefortherespondents No.l, 2 and 3.
Shri H.S.Tripathi. learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
O R t>E R
The petitioner won Janpad Panchayat election.Counting of votes tookplace on 1st and 2nd February, 2000.Results were announced on 3rd February.2000. The writ petitioner was declared elected.
2. The contention of respondent No.4 is that before the results weredeclared and when the votes were being counted a request was made forrecount pointing out certain irregularities in the counting.The ReturningOfficer declined to accept the request on the ground that the ballot paperswere already in strong room.An election petition was filed before the Collector.The contention of the respondent No.4 is that because of seriousdoubts in the counting and recording of votes there is a need to recount theballot papers to ascertain who actuolly won the election.The writ petitionerfiled written statement before the Collector. After hearing the parties, thelearned Collector ordered for recounting.The said order was passed on25.07.20011AA""^P'\<-nnexurennexureP-1. P-^9- ^^i-^^^ ^ ^4T^/. ^, -
3. Shri H.S.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has drawn.^&my attention to a document Annexure R-4 in which the total votes recorded QS-"530.In the next page i.e. page No.14 of the return another documentindicates that there were 524 total votes cast. 19 invalid votes and 505 validvotes. It may be stated that in terms of Annexure R-4, total votes were 530,invalid votes 20 and validvotes 510. According to Shri H.S.Tripathi, when weread these two documents together it is found that six votes have not beenrecorded.
4. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, submits that after the parties were heard, thelearned Collector was of the view that in order to clarify the doubts, the bestway was to recount the votes. It is furt-her submitted that such recount willin no way prejudice any of the parties inasmuch as such recount would onlyreveal the truth of the allegations as regard the valid votes cast in favour ofeither the writ petitioner or the respondent No.4. It is half an hour since thehearing of this matter began. No one appears to press this petition.
5. After hearing Shri H.S.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondentNo.4 and Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing for.uthe respondents ^^b, 2 and 3,1 am of the view that in the interest of justice/it is proper to allow recount as ordered by the CoJlector. In other words inthe present facts and circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with theimpugned order passed on 25July, 2001.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
7. Certified copy as per rules.£
Sd/-Chief Justice21.11.2001