This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED No. D.L. 33001/99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No 35] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed

as separate compilation.

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii)

Orders and Notifications issued by Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2001

O.N. 146.—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the order of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore dated 20-4-2001 in Election petition No. 21 of 1999.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KATANATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2001

BEFORE

(399)

3440 GI/2001—1400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 17, 20OJ/KARTIKA 26, 1923 [PART I I - S u e. 3(iii)] THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TIRATH SINGH THAKUR

ELECTION PETITION NO. 21/1999.

BETWEEN:

A. Siddaraju, Major, R/o No." 2358. J'Block, Adichunchanagiri Road, Kuvempunagav, MYSORE.

PETITIONER (By Sri. G. Gangi Rcddy, Adv.,)

AND :—

1. Returning Officer,

No. 15, Chamarajanagar Loksabha Parliamentury Constituency, Chnmarajangar, And the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanng. r Dist.

2. V. Srinivasa Prasad,

S/o Venkataiah, M.P., Major, R/o No. 91, Bheemasandra, 7th Main, Jayalakshmipuram, MYSORE-12.

3. H. Govindaiali,

Deputy Registrar of Evaluation. Karnaiaka Open University, Manasagangotri.

4. M.K. Kempa Siddaiah,

Major, Mo. 412, 4th 'A' Main Road. 3rd Stage, Basaveswaranagar, BANGALORE-79.

5. Vicharavadi Mantalingaiah,

President, A.J.M.S., Gandhinagar, MYSORE

RESPONDENTS (By Sri G.N. Shantaraju, for

M/S Kesvy & Co., forR-2:

Election Petition is filed u/s. 81 of the Represen- tation of People Act, 1951, praying to call for the production of the ballot papers including the rejected votes and pass for orders, for recount as deemedjfit, in the interest of justice etc.,

This Petition coming on for hearing, the same having been heard and reserved for pronouncement of order, the Court made the following order:

ORDER

In the last general election to the Parliament from No. 15, Cbamarajanagar Parliamentary Cons- tituency, Sri V Srinivasa Prasad-Respondcnt No. 2 in this Petition was declared elected having secured 3,11,547 votes as against 2,95,401 polled by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has in the present Election Petition sought a declaration to the effect that the election of the 2nd respondent is void besides a further declaration that he stands duly elected from the said Constituency. The petitioner's case entirely rests on the alleged improper reception and rejection of votes within the meaning of Sec. 100(d) (iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which has, according to him, materially affecled the result of the election. Broadly speaking, the allegations made in the Election Petition suggest that the result of the election was affected materially by reason of rejection of a large number of votes that had been cast in favour of the petitioner besides . improper mixing of votes polled in favour of petitioner with those polled by the 2nd respondent. The Petition also contains allegations of irregularities in the counting of voles besides suggesting ihat ihe rejection of the votes by the Returning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies was not permissible 1 shall presently refer to the contents of the Petition in detail. Suffice it to say that the Petition does not make any allegation regarding the commission of any corrupt practice by either the successful candidate or any other candidate for that matter.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as ten issues were framed by this Court by order dated 11th of August 2000. Issues No. 1 to 5, which were purely legal in nature and in regard to which no evidence was offered by the parties were treated as preliminary issues. They read as under:

"(1) Whether the Returning Officer R-1, is liable to be deleted from the array of Respon- dents as stated in T.A. No. I, filed by the second Respondent?

(2) Whether the averments made in paras 2 to 22 of the Election Petition, arc unnecessary, vexatious and frivolous hence liable to be struck off?

(3) Whether the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action and is therefore liable to be rejected?

(4) Whether the Election Petition has not been verified properly and is liable to be dismissed on that ground?

(5) Whether the Election Petitioner has not complied with Section 81(3) of the Representa- tion of People Act,? If so, whether the; petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground?"401 !SSU£ NO. (1)

Tt was argued by Mr Shantaraju, 'earned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, that the Returning Officer is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings. Ho contended thut Sec. 82 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was sn exhaustive provision and did not permit any porson other than those referred to therein as party respondent to an Ejection Petilion. The Returning Officer-Responded No. 1 was therefore improperly joined as e party and deserved to be deleted from the array of respon- dents. Reliance in support was placed by the learned Counsel upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in JYOT[ BASU AND OTHERS Vs. DEBI GHOSAL AND OTHERS (AIR 1982 SC 983} B. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1991 Supp (2) SCC 624] and SUBHAN KHAN Vs. J H PATEL AND OTHERS [1995 (3) KLJ 559J.

In Jyoti Basu's case (supra), the Apex Court declared that no one may be joined as a parly to an Ejection Petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act The Court held that betides Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act, there is no other provision dealing with the question as to who may be joined as respondents and that while a candidate not already a respondent may seek his addition and may be joined as a respondent, any other person cannot do so even if allegations of corrupt practice are made against him. The contest of an election petition, declared the Court, was con- fined to the candidates at the election excluding a!! others. The Court observed: —

"The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is ihc design of Hie statute, how can the uotion of 'proper parties' enter the picture at all? We think that tbe concept of 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respon- dents to an election petition who tire mentioned in S.82 and S.86(4) and no others. However, desirable and expadient it may appear to be none else shall be joined as respondents."

Even in Sundara. Rami Reddy's case relied upon by Mr. Sh antharaju, the Court reiterated that the concept of a 'proper party' is must remain alien under the Representation of the People Act, 195J. The Court held:-

"The concept of 'proper party' is and must remain alien to an election dispute undor the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned ;n Section K2 and. Scjlion S6;l) .I'tJ..IM oi'nen Hnvjver desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents."

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Subhan Khan's case, in which Krishna mocrtby, J., while examining a similar question expressed doubts about P A SHRECDHAR SHANAI Vs. CHIEF ELECTRORAL OFFICER [FLR 1990 KAR 2622] stating the correct legal position after the declaration of the law by the Supremo Court in B Sundara Rama ReddyVcase (supra) I am cons- cious of a recent decision of a Simple Bench of this Court in K S ESHWARAPPA Vs. H M CHANDRA- SHEKARAPPA AND OTHERS [ILR 2001 KAR 1878], in which the Court appears to have relied upon the decision in P A Shrecdhara Shanaj's case while holding that a petition in which a party other than those permitted by Sec 82 of the Act is impleadcd cannot be dismissed on the ground of misjoindor only. That decision eanuot in my opinion be understood to be laying down a proposition contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and Sundara Rama Reddy's cases (supra). The ratio of the decision simply is that while failure to implead a party who is a necessary party under Sec. 82 may be fatal, the improper joining of ;i paity outside the requirement of that piovision cannot entail dismissal of the petition. The argument of Mr Gangi Reddy that the Returning Officer for the election was a proper party having regard to the nature of the alle- gations made in regard to the counting of votes must accordingly fail and is hereby rejected.

ISSUES NOS. 2 AND 3

It was contented by Mr. Shantaraju, Counsel appearing for the elected candidate that the Election Petition docs not disclose any cause of action and was therefore liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C P C. He submitted that Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act requires every Election Petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner placed reliance. The averments made in the present Peti- tion did not, argued the learned Counsel, satisfy tho said mandatory requirement and therefore failed to disdose any cause of action rendeiing the Petition liable to be rejected at the threshold.

On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Gangireddy argued that the averments madejn the Petition were sufficient to disclose a full cause of action and that the particulars that may have been initially deficient may be allowed to be incorporated by way of an amendment, for which purpose the petitioner has made a separate application- He argued that the contents of the petition sufficiently satisfied the requirement of law which could not be thrown o ut at the threshold.

Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act inter uJia provides that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material /acts on which the petitioner relies. Judicial pronounce- ments as to what constitutes "material fuels" and what is ihe effect of non furnishing of such facts are a legion. Reference to all those decisions is in my opinion unnecessary for tho legal position is autho- . ritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme . Court to which I shall birefly refer.

In SAMANT N BALAKR1SHNA ETC. Vs. GEORGE FERNANDEZ AND OTHERS ETC., [AIR 1969 SC 1201], the Supreme Court held that Sec. 83 of the Act was mandatory and that a Peti- tion, which did not contain material facts was not election petition at all. The Court observed tha material facts constitute the cause of action foT the filing of the Petition and that omission of a single material fact would amount to an incomplete cause of action. The following passage from the decision is apposite: —

"Section 83 is mandatory and requires the election petition to contain first a concise state- ment of'.material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The word 'material" shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause, of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the' statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in, detail as to make 1he oppo- site party understand the cause he will have to meel. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but Lhe to arc quite distinct

An election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition, at all. A pethion which merely cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action where the allegation is the making of a false statement."

IN 5ITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. KRISHNA BEHARI AND OTHERS [AIR 1970 SC 276], the Court was dealing with the question of scrutiny of ballot papers in terms of Sec. 92 of the Act read with Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules. The significance of material Tacts was noticed by the Court in the following words :

"The basic requirements to b; satisfied before an election tribunal can permit the inspection of ballot papers, are (I) that the petition for setting aside the election must contain an adeflUjite state- ment of the material facts on which the petitioner relief, in support of his case and {2) ihe tribunal must b? pvima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice b,'tween the parties, inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The material facts required to be stated are those facia which can be considered as materials supporting the alkgatior.u ivu.d*:."' The Court further held that if the election peti- tioner gavo some figures regarding rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not b-i considered as an adequate statement of facts if the petitioner has not disclosed in the Petition the basis on which ha arrived at those figures. The Court obsevercd :

"In other words they must be such facts as to attbrd a basis for the allegations made in the petition. If an election potitionc in his election petition gives some figures as to the rejection of valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same must not be considered as an adequate statement of material facts when the petitioner has not disclosed in the Paition the basis on which he arrived at those figures. His bald assertion that he get those figures from tht count- ing agents ol" the unsuccessful candidate cannot afford the necessaty basis."

In BHELIRAM BHALAIK Vs. JA1 BEHARI LAL KHACHI AND ANOTHER [AIR 1975 SC 288], the Court held that a Court trying the election petition would be justified in ordering a recount or pjimitting inspection of the ballot papers only where all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded arc pleaded adequately in ihe election petition. Mere allegations tha; the petitioner suspects or believes that there has b^cn improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes or there have been irrgu'aiities in tho counting of bjllot papers will not b; sufficient to support an order of recounting,

To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in BHABHI Vs. SHEO GOVIND AND OTHERS [AIR 1975 SC 2117], in which the Court held that the allegations made against the elected eandidaie must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statement of material facts. In UDHAV SINGH Vs. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [AIR 1976 SC 744], the Court declared that failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an in- complete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order VIRule J6 of the C.P.C If ihe petition is baseW sb*ely wv alterations which suffer from lack of material facts, •thesame is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of aciiou.

In AZHAH. HUSSA1N Vs. RAJIV GANDHI (AIR 1986 SC 1253], one of the questions Llxut arose for considerations was whether :hc petition could be rejected on the ground that it did not contain jnaterial ("acts keeping in view the fact that S ••:. 86 of tk Act, which authorises dismissal of an 1_-l,;tioii p-tili'in in certain contingencies did not p.-rmit dismissal on ihc ground of violation of S^c 83. R/'pclliiv: the argument that such a Petition could not be dismissed under Sec. 86 of the Act, the court observed:

"An election petition can bo and must be dismissed under the provisions of Civil P.C. if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 to incorporate the material faUs and parti- culars relating to alleged corrupt practice in the election petition arc not complied wi h. The cinie of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an election petition by virtue of section. 87 of the Act. Since C.P.C. is applicable, the Court trying the election petition can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6 Rule 16 ai d Order 7 Rule 11 (a). Threefore that Section 83 does not find a place in Section 86 of the Act which au'horises dismissal of election petitions in cer- tain Contingencies, docs not rrteiin that pjwers under the C.P.C. cannot be exercised. An elec- tion petition can b; summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise of the powers under the civil P.C. and it is settled law that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and that an election petition withou the material facts relat- ing to a corrupt p, aeticc is not an election petition at all."

(emphasis supplied) In BHAGWATI PRASAD D1XIT GHORA- WALA Vs. RAJIV GANDHI [AIR 1986 SC 1534], flic Court while reiterating the legal position stated in the earlier decisions, declared that election, plead- ings have to bo precise, spceifie ard unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose the cau^e Df action, it should be dismissed in lknine. The Court observed thai if the allegations contained in the Petition do not set out the grounds of challenge is contemplated under Sec. 100 of the Aet and if the illegations do not conform to the requirement of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act, the pleadings ate liable o be struck off and the election petition liable to be ejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Jourt in V NARAYANASWAMY Vs. C. P. THIRU- •JAVUKKARASU AIR 2000 SC 694], where the Sourt distinguished 'material facts' from 'material arUculnrs' in the following words :

"There is diUcrence between "material factt" and "material particulars." While the luilurc to plead material facts is fatal to the election peti- tion the absence of material particulars tan be cured at a latet stage by an appropriate amendment. "Material facts" mean the entire bundle of iacts, which would constitute a complete cause of ac- tion and these must be concisely stated in the election petition, i e., Cl (a) of sub-section (1) of S:83. Then under C! (b) of sub-section (1) of S.83 the election petition must contain lull parti- culars of any corrupt practice The particulars are obviously different from material facts on which the petition, is found_d."

The decision of the Supreme Court in MA- HENDRA PAL Vs RAM DASS MALANGER AND OTHERS [AIR 2000 SC !6], reiterates the legal position in simi'ar words.

To sum up ; (I) the provisions of Sec. 83 of t ht Representation of People Act are mandatory. Omis sion of the petitioner to state material facts are re- quired by the said provision is fatal to the main tainability of the Petition. (2) 'Material Facts¹ a re diflernt from the 'Material particulars'. While the formci constitute the cause of action to maintain the Petition, the later can be provided, subject to the condition that the material facts in regard to the ground set up in the election petition have been stated. (3) The omission to state even a single ma- terial fact constitutes an incomplete cause of action justifying dismissal/rejection of the petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the of the C.P.C. (4) If the ground urged in the pe ition rehtes to improper reception or rejection of votes, it it not enough to give some figures regarding the said votes. Any such figures eatmot be deemed to be an adequate statement of material facts when the peiitioner has not disclosed in the petition the basis on which he had arrived at those figures. (,5) Bald assertions that the petitioner got the figures from his counting agents or the agents of other unsuccessful candidates cannot aflcud a, legal basis. He must state as to who are the agents and what were the serial numbers of the ballot appers on whieh they had advanced their objection at the time of their improper reception or reaction by the Returning Officer.

It is time now to leveut back to the facts of the case ia hand to determine whether the Petition satis- fies the requirements of See. 83 of the Act and sets out the material facts in support of the allegations made and the grounds urged.

In para I of the petition certain general tact are stated, which arc not indispute. Para 2 of ilie pe ition iuter alia states that the Returning Officer as rejected more than 30,01)0 votes CJit m favour404 THE GAZETTE Of fNDiA : NOVEMBER 17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(iii)] segments refered to theiein. Paras 27 and 28 allege that rejection and mixing of votes was con- trary to law and had materially affected the result o the election.

For the sake of clarity, the petitioner's gri- evance as regards the improper reception and rejection of votes as also the irregularities in the matter of counting of the votes may be summed up thus :

(1) More than 30,000 votes caste in favour of the pititioner have been rejected without assigning proper reasons Most of these votes were rejected in Kollegal Cha- marajanagar, Santhemaranahally and GundJupct Constituencies.

(2) The rejection was made by the Returning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies who were not competent to do so.

(3) The rejection of the votes was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without showing the ballot ts to the election agents of the petitioner.

(4) The objections raised to the rejection of votes in regard to Kollegal, Santemara- nahalli Chamarajnagar and Gundlupet Assembly Constituencies were ignored by the officials concerned.

(5) The result of the election was materially affected by reason of a proper votes polled in favour of the petitioner with those counted in favour of the elected candidate.

(6) Rejected ballot papers do not have the signatures of the Returning Officer affixed to them as required under sec. 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules.

(7) The representation made by the pcttioner seeking a recount was rejected mechani- cally.

The question then is whether the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to the irregu- larities set out above are supported by the material facts required to be stated in terms of Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act. of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Re- turning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies, without assigning proper reasons and without show- ing the ballot papers to the "Election Agents" of the petitioner. In paras 3 and 6 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that maximum votes were re- jected in Kollega!, Chamrajnagar, Santhemarana- ha!i and Gundlupet Constituencies, in which large scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes. In para 4 of the petition the petitiner has given particulars of the Assistant Returning Officers and alleged that although, some of the "Election Agents" of the petitioner had raised objections, the same were not considered while rejecting the votes. In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that signature of the Returning Officer are not affixed on the Ballot Papers as was required under Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules and Section 100(1) (d) (iii) and (iv) o( R.P. Act. It is also alleged that the Votes cast in favour of the petitioner were mixed with the bundle of the votes of the second Respon- dent. Para 7 of the petition relates to one ballot ' paper found in the School premises where Polling Station No. 27, of Heggawadipura in Santhomarana- halli village, contituency was established. Jt is alleged that a case has beeu registered by the Police and the matter is under investigation. Para 8, refers to Representation made by the petitioner to the Re- turning Officer, pointing-oui irregularities in the rejection of votes and mixing of votes poflcd in his favour with those cast in favour of the Respondent which representation it is alleged was rejected mecha- nically. Paras 9 to 18 give particulars of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and the second Res- pondent in different grounds of counting. Para 19 alleges mixing of votes cast in favour of the petitioner with those polled in favour of the second Respondent and states that in each bundle of 25 ballot papers, there were at least 4 to 5 votes cast in favour of th petitioner that were mixed with thoso cast in favour of the second Respondent- In para 20, the petitioner has alleged that Counting Agents on Counting Tables Nos 6, 10 and 14 of Kollegal Constituency, Counting Table Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Santhcmaranahalli As- sembly Constituency and Counting Tables 1, 3 and 5 of Chamrajnagar Constituency had raised objections regarding improper mixing of vote" and the rejection of the votes which were noi. considered by the Re- turning Officer. In para 21, the petitioner alleges improper mixing ol' voles in regard to table Nos. 1, 6, 10 and 12 of Chamrajnagar Constituency, Tables

In so far as the petitioner's allegation that more than 33,000 votes cas; in his favour wore rejected without giving any peroper resaons and that large scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes, the petition does not disclose the basis on which those allegations are made nor does it provide the material iaots relevant 1, 6, 10 and 12 of Kollcgal Constituency, Tables No. 2, 4, 8 and 9 of Santhemaranahalli Assembly Consti- tuency and tables 4, 6, 7, R and 10 of Gundlupet Assembly Constituency paras 22 to 25 reiterate the said allegations. In para 26 the petitioner gives certain fip.iiTcs which accoi'Oin:; <*-> him represent the votes actually polled in his favour in I he Assembly405 thereto. The allegitions arc general in nature and blissfully vague. Simply saying that out of the rejected votes more than 30,000 were polled in favour o( the petitioner is of no consequence in tile absence of supporting material facts relevant thereto. Similarly, the omnibus allegations that tyrge scale irregularities were committed in the counting of votes or that the votes polled in favour of the petitioner's were rejected without Assigning proper reasons does not meel the require- ment ot Section 83 of the Act nor do the said allegations give rise to a triable issue.

Officer was unavoidably held up. The rejection oc the votes by the Returning Officers of the Assem- bly Constituencies in exercise of their powers as Assistant Returning Officers of the Parliamentary Constituencies, cannot therefore be found fault with. It follow* 'hat the absence of the signa- ture of the Returning Officer on the rejected Ballot Papers, would also be wholly immaterial so long as the Assistant Returning Officers have in keeping with the procedure prescribed by the Rules signed by the rejected ballot papers. That the Assistant Returning Officers have signed the rejected ballot papers is not disputed. The result is that the rejection of the ballot papers by the Assistant Returning Officers of the Parliamentary Constituencies, does not afford tiny cause of action to sustain the petition.

The next allegation is that votes were rejected by the Returning Officers of the Assembly Constituencies instead of the Returning Officer of {he Parliamentary Constituency. The absence of Signatures of the Returning Officer of the Parlia- mentary Constituency, on the rejected Ballots is also urged as a ground to challenge the Election. The petition does not however make out a case for interference with the result of the Election even On the basis of the said allegations. It is com- mon ground that Election for the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assembly were held together. The Returning Officers for the Assembly Cons- tituencies comprising the Parliamentary Consti- tuencies weie appointed as the Assistant Returning Officers for the Parliamentary Constituencies. The power of the Returning Officer in regard to rejection of Votes are exercisable even by the Assistant Returning Officers, appointed for the Constituencies concerned. This is evident from $ection 22 oi the R. P. Act, which reads :—

"(1) The Election Commission may appoint one or more persons to assist any returning officer in the performance ot his functions:

Provided that every such person shall be (an Officer of Government or of a local authority).

(2) Every assistant returning officer shall, subject to the control of the returning officer, be competent to perform all or any of the functions of the returning officer :

Provided that no astistant returning Officer shall perform any of the functions of the returning officer which relate to the scrutiny of nominations unless the returning Officer is unavoidably prevented from performing the said functions ."

That brings me to the allegation that the rejection of the ballot Papers was in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Rules and without showing them to the "Election Agents" of the petitioner. It was argued by Mr. Shantaraju, Counsel for the second Respondent tint the question of showing the ballot papers to the "Election Agents" of the petitioner did not arise having regard to the fact that the petitioner like all other candidates was entitled to appoint only one "Election Agent". Section 40 of the R. P. Act, entitles every candidate to appoint any person other than himself to be his "Election Agent". Section 45 provides that an "Election Agent", may perform such functions as may be prescribed. There is therefore no gainsaid that the question of petitioner appointing more than one person as "Election Agents" did not arise. The averment that the Ballot Papers were rejected without showing the same to the "Election Agent" of the petitioner is thus clearly mis-placed. What the petitioner obviously means to say is that the votes were rejected without showing them to his "Counting Agents" appointed under Section 47 of the Act. Even if we ignore the confusion which the petitioner appears to be suffering from, the question is whether the allegation regarding rejection of the Votes contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules, and without showing the Ballots to the "Counting Agents" can be said to provide a cause of action. Tn so far as the violation of the procedure pres- cribed by the Rules is concerned, the Election Petition does not give any details whatsoever. All that is stated is that the rejection w.i^ con- trary to the procedure prescribed by the Rules, The petition ought to have set out h? materi il facts in regard to the alleged violation wlvch the petitioner had in mind while making the said allegation. SinJlaily the allegation that the Votes The Assistant Returning Officer's were, therefore entitled to perform all the functions of the Returning Officer except those relating to scrutiny of the nomination papers, which function could be perform by them only, if the Returning406 THE GAZETTF. OE INDIA : NOVEMBER IT, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923 [PART TI—SEC. 3^iBl were rejected without showing the same to "Elec- tion Agents" ("Counting Agents") is also bereft of any material (acts, The petition does not indicate the number of votes that were rejected without showing the same to the "Counting Agents" concerned nor does the petition give the names and Par'iculars o!" 'he "Conn ing Agci's" concerned or ihc Assembly segmen¹ in rob'ion o which such alleged irregularity was committed. The general allegation that ballots were rejected without showing the snme to the ''Counting Agents" of the petitioner, would not therefore meet the requirements of Section 83 especially when the petitioner does not disclose the basis on which the said allegation is made.

Coming then to the rejection of Votes polled in Kollegal, Santhemaranahalli, Chamrajnagar and Gundkipet Assembly Constituencies, all that the petitioner has stated is that the "Counting Agents" in respect of some of the counting Tables, for the said Assembly Constituencies had raised objections regarding improper rejection of votes, which were not considered by the Returning Officer. The petition does not however state the requisite facts in regard to the nature of objections and the number of votes that were rejected on each one of the tables referred to by the petitioner. As observed by the Supreme Court in JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH vs. KRISHNA BEHARI & OTHERS /AIR 1970 SC. 276/ even if. the petition gives certain figures as to the rejection of the valid votes and acceptance of invalid votes, the same cannot be considered as an adequate statement of mateijal facts if the petitioner does not dis- close the basis on which he anived at those figures A bald assertion that those figures were obtained from the "Counting Agents" of the unsuccessful candidates cannot declared the Court afford the necessary basis.

In the instant eases the petitioner has not even given the figures of the votes rejected improperly and despite objections raised by the Counting Agents on his behalf. The allegation is much too vague to give rise to a cause of ae'ion. As to how many votes were rejected and what were the objections that were raised against lejocHon thereof has not been disclosed. The allegation therefore remains unsupported by the material lacts requisite for making out a triable case.

The position is no different in regard to the allegation of the petitioner that votes polled in his favour were counted in favour of the elected candidate. Even here, the allegation is totally vague and general in nature. What the petitioner states is thai with every bundle of 25 baJlot papers 4-5 votes polled in his favour were mixed with the votes polled in favour of the second Respondent correspondingly reducing the number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner. The allegation is that objections regarding the improper mixing of votes in regard to certain' Counting Tables for Kollegal, Chararaj- nagar, Santhemaranahalli and Gundlupet Consti- tuencies were raised by the Counting Agents but ignored by the Returning Officer. The peti- tioner does not however give any details as to the number of votes that were so mixed on each one of the tables referred to by the petitioner and the basis on which the allegation regarding improper mixing has been made. In the absence of material facts supporting the allegation of improper mixing it is difficult to sec hovv th< petitioner can claim a cause of action to maintain this petition.

Last but not the least is the allegation regarding mechanical rejection of the Represen- tation made by the petitioner in which the petitioner claims to have pointed out the irregu- larities in the improper reception rejection and mixing up of votes in course of counting, A copy of the Representation filed by the petitioner has been produced as ANNEXURE-D to the petition. The English translation of the Representation furnished by Mr. Gangireddy. Counsel for the petitioner reads as under ;

"From : S. Siddaraju, Candidate (Congress) 15 Chamrajanagar Parliamentary Constituency, No. 2358, 'G' Block, Adichunchanagiri Road. Mysore.

To :

The Election Presiding Officer, 15 Chamrajanagar Parliamentary, Constituency, Chamrajnagar. Sir,

The counting of votes for the 13th Parlia- mentary election took place on 6-10-1999, T have doubt and suspicion in counting votes, because the votes polled for Assembly constituencies and Parliamentary constituencies are not tailing. There are variation and differences in polled vote and while deciding the invalid votes, the votes polled in favour (Hand symbol) are rejected. And while making the bundle of 25 votes counted votes, the votes polled in my favour were mixed up in the bundle of other candidates, artd counted in their favour, T have a doubt and suspicion in counting votes. I feel injustice is caused to me407 for the reasons stated above. Hence, I request you to order for recounting of votes of Chamara- janagar Parliamentary constituencies.

Dated : 7-10-1999. Yours truly,

Sd/- Tt is evident from the above that the Representa- tion did not contain any allegation regarding votes being rejected by Officers not competent to do so or regarding votes being- rejected in violation of the procedure prescribed^ by the Rules and without show- ing the ballot papers to the Counting Agents con- cerned or votes being rejected despite objections raised by the "Counting Agents" in KoUegal, Santhe- rharanahaHi, Chamarajanagur and Gundlupet Assem- bly Constituencies or 4 to 5 votes polled in favour of the petitioner being mixed'with the bundle o\' i ^tes polled in favour of the successful candidates. The Representation is, based on doubts which the petitio- ner entertained regarding the counting of Votes and rejection of those that were polled in his favour. In the absence of any specific allegation suggesting any irregularity in the counting process, the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the request for a re- count. Inasmuch as the Re-count applied for by the petitioner was declined the Returning Officer did not in my opinion commit any illegality or impropriety to affect the validity of the result declared by him. As a matter of fact, the absence of any one of the allegations now made in the Election Petition chal- lenging, the validity of the-counting and the result, clearly shows that the petitioner did not on the date of the counting have any reasonable ground to ques- tion the result of the counting process as such. Even if the allegations now made in the petition arc taken on their face value, the same fall short of the require- ments of Section 83 of the R. P. Act, and therefore do not provide a cause of action to the petitioner to maintain the present petition.

Mr. Gangi Reddy, however, argued that the deficiencies in ihe petition could be removed by permitting the petitioner to amend the same. He submitted that the application made by the petitioner for amendment could be allowed and the particulars set out therein allowed¹ to be incorporated; which would provide a cause of aotion to the petitioner. There is in my opinion, no merit in that contention either. The legal position as settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier makes a distinction between material facts the absence whereof would result indismissal of the petition for want of cause of action and material particulars that could be provided if not originally set out in the petition. As stated by their Lordships in V. NARAYANA SWAMY's case/AIR' 2000-SC. 694/. while failure to plead • material facts is fatal to ihc Election Petition, the absence of maierial.partic-ulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment, Since 3440 GI/2001—2

the petition as drawn up by the petitioner has been found to be lacking in material facts, there is no question of the petitioner infusing life into the same by way of an amendment. Even Mr. Gangiroddy, was fair enough to concede that material facts could not be introduced by way of an amendment while material particulars could be provided. He therefore described the Amendment Application as an attempt to provide material particulars and not material facts which according to him were already set out in the petition. Since that submission has not been found to be correct, there is no room for granting the application for amendment to bring in material particulars.

Issues No. 2 and 3 are accordingly decided against the petitioner.

Issues No. 4 and 5 :

Keeping in view my findings on Tssues 2 and 3, above, 1 consider it unnecessary and academic to deal with Issues No. 4 and 5.

In the result, this petition is liable t be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. read with Section 83-of the R. P. Act. The same is accordingly rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 1,000 to be paid out of the security deposit made by the petitioner. The balance shall be refunded to the petitioner.

The Registry shall take steps for communication of this Order to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Election Commission, m terms of Section 103 of the Representation of the People Act.

Sd/-

Judge TN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

ELECTION PETITION NO. 21/1999 BETWEEN : A. Siddaraju, Major R/o. No. 2358; T Block, Adich LiTtchanagiri > Road ; Kuvempunagar, Mysore, Petitioner (By Sri G. Gangi Reddy, Adv.)

Vs.

\. Returning Officer No. 15,

Chamarajanagar. Lok Sabha Parliamentary Constituency, Chamarajanagar, and The Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar Distt,108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 17 2001/KART1KA 26, 1923 [PAUT II— 5i:c. 3(iii)] 2. V. Srinivasa Prasad,

S/o. Venkataiah, M.P., Major, R/o. No. 91, Bheeniasandn, 7th Main, Jayal.ikshmipuiam, Mysore-12.

3. H. Govindaiah.

Deputy Registrar of Evaluation. Karnataka Open University, Manasaganjrotri.

4. M. K. Kcmpe Sidduiah, Major, No. 412, 4th 'A' Main Road, 3rd Stage, Basuvc-waranaear. Bmg:.ilore-79.

5. Vitharavadi Mantalingaiah,

President, A.J.M.S., (iandhinagar, My .ore. Respondents The Go\r. Adv. IVr R- I, G. V. Shantluiniju Tor R - j, Respondents 3 to .1 are placed evparle v/o.

' tit, 24-6-2000,

DECREE IN liLECTIOM PETITION This Election Petition filed n/s. SI of the Repre- sentation ' the People Act, i9.S!, by the Petitioner- candidate at 1999 General Election to the Lok Sabha from No. 15, Chamarajaiiagtir P.nliamcntary Consti- tuency held on 11-9-ISW⁰ praying that this Hon'ble Coi'rt be please.I to ;

1. Call for the concerned records, order for production of the Ballot Papers including the rejected votes and puss for orders, for recount as deemed fit, in the interest of Just'ce.

2. Declare the election of 2nd Respondent as void and thereafter declare the Petitioner is elected as M.P. for the Parliamentary Section 15 of Chamarajanagar in Karnataka State, in the interest of Justice and equity.

i

This Election Petition coming up for orders, on l.As. I to V regarding [.As. I and III for deletion of Respondent No. 1 from the Election Petition, l.A. 11 for striking out the Paragraphs 2 to 22 in the Election Petition and for dismissing the Election Petition, T.A. IV and l.A, V for amendment of the Election Petition, between 9-6-2000 to 30-3-2001 and for Pronouncement of orders on 20-4-2001 in the presence of Sri G. Gimizi Reddy, Advocate for Peti- tioner and the Go\ jnii.iL,.t Advoeiue for Ites'pjoJjnt No, 1 and Sri G. V, Shantharajn, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and Respondents 3 to 5 having been placed ev-parte v/o duted 24-6-2000 and for the reasons stated in the order, it is ordered and decreed that the Election Petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

And it is further ordered and decreed that the C'osU assessed at Rs. 1,000 to be paid out of the Security Deposit made by the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent. The balance amount shall be refunded to the Petitioner.

Sd/-

Ree.istrar (Judicial)

[No- K2/KT-HP/21/99/2O01]

By Order,

BABU RAM, Secy.

4-)?

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th Novetnbcr, 20)1

O. N. 147.—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied thai ||cach of the contesting candidates specified in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the .Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 2001, held from I he Constituency specified in the column (2) against his/her name has failed to lodge an account of his/her election expenses as mentioned in column (4) of the said Table, as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder;

And, whereas the said candidates have either not furnished aay reason or explanation for the said failures even aficr due notice to each of them and the Election- Cofamission is satisfied that they have no good reason or justification for the said failure;

Mow, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby dtcli j< f- the persons specified in column (3) ofihe Table below to b2 (disqualified for being chosen as and for beinjj, a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order.

TABLE

Reason for disqualification

Name & Address of the contesting candidate

No. & Name of Assembly Constituency

SI. No.

3

4 2

1

15-Gummidipoondi

Accounts not lodged at alli I.

Nedunchanzhian, E, Vadamadurai, Village Uthukottai Taluk, Tamil Nadu.

-do- 16-Ponneri (SC)

2.

Rathinam, A.D., 4, Valluvar St., Arani, Ponneri Taluk, Tamil Nadu.

-do- 18-Villivakkam

3.

Abubakkar M., 35/39, Angamuthu Nagar, 1st St., Piidj, Chennai-50 Tamil Nadu.

4. 28-Poonaimallee

Accounts not lodged at all.

Gouthaman, C. N. A., Old No. 12 B, (New No. 27 B), 4th West, Cross Street, Sheuoy Nagar, Chen.nai-30 Til mil Nadu.

30-Tiruttani

5.

-dc-

1. Chandrababu, P. S., S/o Subramanian, Kodivalli Village, [llupur Post, 631-204 Via, Kanakammachatram, Tirultani Taluk. , Tamil Nadu.

-do-

2. Thiyagarajan, T. M., S/o Munlrathmam, 2/32, B. Saraiathi St., ThimvaUmgadu-631210, Timttani Taluk, Tamil Nadu.

3. Jayaraman, A.,

-do-

S/o M. Arumugam, 72A, Thattankulum Pudur, Tiruttani Town, Timttani Taluk-631209 Tamil Nadu.

3i*Pallipattu

6 .

I. Sankaran, G.(

-do-

Nodiyaiii Village & Post, Paltipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.

2. Thiruvengadam, A. K.,

-do-

4/401, Dr. Ambedkar StretJ, Vanganoor, Village &Post, Pallipattu Ttiluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.

3. Panchatcharam, D.,

-do-

Somasamudram Colony, Sholinghur Post, Walaja Taluk, Velio re District, Tamil Nadu.

4. Vinayagam, P. A.,

-do-

Mettu Street, Buchircddy Palli, Village & Post, Tiruttani Taluk , Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu,412- THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : NOVEMBER-17, 2001/KARTTKA 26, 1923 [PART IT—SE'C. 3(rii)] i 1 3 4 1. Maliraju, M.,

J97-Il]angudi

7.

Accounts not lodged at all.

GunappaiiciicLal (P.O.), fmaneswaram (via), lllayangudi Taluk, Tamil Nitdn.

2. Rasool Khan. P. M. K.,

-do-

5, Pakkir Rowther St., lllayangudi, Tamil Nadu.

[No. 76/TN-LA/200 1]

By Order,

BABU RAM, Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, !00l

O.N, 148-—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting cnudjdatis specifxd in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly, T 0 1, held frrm the Constituency specified in the.column (z) against his/her name has failed to ledge an account of his/her election expenses as mentioned in celumn (4) of the said Table, as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder;

And, whereas the said candidates have cither not furnished any reason or explanation for the said fnilures even after due notice to each of them and the Election Commission is satisfied that they have no gcod reas( n o-r justification for the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the persons specified in column (3) of the Table below to be disqalified for being chosen as and for being, a member of either House of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a pcried of 3 years from the date of this Order.

TABLE

No. and Name of Assembly Name and Address of the contesting

Reason for disqualification SI. No i. Constituency

candidate

1

I

3

4 1, 16-North Wayanad(ST)

Accounts not V dged at all

Paleri Raman, PaJeri (H), Makkiyadu Post. Vellamunda (via) Kerala

29-Kalpetta

2.

1. Bijii,

-do-

Kottayadokolly (H),

Check kallor,

Kaniyambetta, P.O.

Kerala

-do-

2, Ramchandran, Kannankott, Ruttakkolli, Kalpetta, Kerala.

3. Hamza,

-do-

Korankunnan (H), Kambalakkad Post, Wayanad, Kerala,414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: NOVEMBER 17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923 [PAIW TF—Si-c. Viifr] 1 2 3 4 Accounts not> lodged at all, 30-Sulthan Bathery

3.

V.T. Appachan,

Vadakkethil,

Chamappara,

Seetliamount (P.O.)

Kerala

[No. 76/KL-LA/2001]

fly Order,

BABU RAM. Secy.

3440 GI/2001—3416 THE GAZETTE OF fNDTA : NOVEMBER"17, 2001/KARTIKA 26, 1923 [PART I[i-Sbc. 3(fii)] ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001 •

O. N. 149. -Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified in column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2001 held from the Constituency specified in column (2) against his name has failed tolodge anyi account of his election expenses or has failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required, bylaw as shown in column (4) of the said Table as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder; and Whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice or the Election Commission after considering the representation made by them, if any, is satisfied that they have no good reason or justification for the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 10A o(~ the said Act, the Election Commission hereby declares the pesons specified in column (3) ofthe Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being;a member of either House ofthe Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a Staie/Union Territory lor a period of three years from the date of this Order

TABLE

Names of contesting candidaies

Reason for disqualification Number and Neme of

s.

Assembly Constituency

No.

3

4

1

Account not lodged at all 1. 4—Cooch Behar North

Sh. Prakash Roy Magazine Road, P.O. -t District: Cooch Behar, West Bengal.

2

Account not lodged at all 26—Phansidewa (ST)

Sh. Cornelius Tigga Churnidangi, Chathat bansgaon,. P.O. & P.S. Phansidewa, Distt. Darjeeling. West Bengal.

Account not lodged at all 3. 79—Hahskhali (SO

Ms. Amrita Sarkar Vill : Hemayctpur, (Mathnarayarpur), P.O. Shibnarayanpur, P.S. Dhantals, District Nadia, West Bengal.

Account not lodged at all 81—Rannghat West

4.

Sri Dipankar Biswas Cospers Notified Area, D Block Ward No, 3, Distriet Nadia, West Bengal.

Account not lodged at all 81—Ranaghat West

5.

Sri Swapan Dutta Vill. + P.O. Panpara, District Nadia, West Bengal.

6, 83—Haringhata

Account not lodged at all

Sh. Paresh Mondal Vill. + P.O. Chanduria, District Nadia, West Bengal.

• 4174 3 1 2 Account not lodged at all 83—Haringhata

7.

Ms. Shefali Haider V ill. + P.O. Chanduria District Nadia West Bengal.

Account not lodged at all 130—Bhatpara

8.

Sri Narendra Pratap Mishra 2B, Prince Rahimuddin Lane, Kolkata-700033.

Account not lodged at all 130—Bhatpara

9.

Sri Ajay Biswas 29/4/1 Kabin Rd., P'.O. Jagatdal 24 Pgs (N) Kolkata-743125.

Account not lodged al all 130—Bhatpara

10.

Sri Ramesh Shaw 55/1, Atchala Bagan Road, Jagatdal, 24 Pgs (N), 743125.

vAccounl not lodged al all 293—Nalhati

11.

Dr. Jayprakash Chakrabarti Nalhati Medical Centre, •ftO. Nalhati (T.S.) District Birbhum. West Bengal.

'•Account not lodged at all 293—Nalhati

12.

Sri Bhanjan LcL Vill.JBanti, ¹ P!O. Bautia,

District Birbhuin. West Bengal.

[No. ;76/WB-LA/2001

By •Order,

' GHANSHYAM KUOHAR, Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 7th November, 2001

O N, 150,—Whereas, the Election Commission is satisfied that each of the contesting candidate specified In column (3) of the Table below at the General Election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly, 2000 held from the Constituency specified in column (2) against his name has failed to lodge any account of his election expenses or has failed to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner required by Jaw as shown in column (4) of the said Table as required by the Representation o( the People Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder; and Whereas, the said candidates have either not furnished any reason or explanation for the said failure even after due notice or the Election Commission after considering the representation made by them, if any, is satisfied that they have no good reason or justification (or the said failure;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 10A of the paid Actt the Election Commission hereby o'ocJarc? the persons specified in column (3) of the Table below to be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Counci] of a State/Union Terrilcry for a period of three years from the date of this Order.

TABLE

Number and name of

Names of contesting candidates

Reason for disqualification s.

Assombly Constituency

3

2

No. 1

3 "" 94—Nawapara

Account not lodged at all.

1.

Sh. Giinanath Joshi, AT/P.O. : Nuapada, P.S_ : Nuapada, District : Nuapada, Orissa.

94—Nawapara

2.

Account not lodged at all

SL Jeerakhan Majhi, AT : Chalmunda, RO, : Khariar Road, P S. ; Jonk, Distt : Noapada, Orissa.

3 111—Balarjgir

Account not lodged at a¹!

Sh. Bcnimadhab Hota, AT/P.O : Loogaon, P.S : Tusra, District: BaJangJr, Orissa.

4. 138—Biramitrapur (ST)

Account not lodged at aJL

Sh. Sukdcv Pradhan, AT : Madhupurt P.O. : Limda, P.S. : Bisie, District : Sundaigai-h, Orissa.

138—Biramitrapur (ST)

5.

Account not lodged at all.

Sh. Danie! Lugun, Qr No. B/220, Sector J4, Rourke]a-9, District : Sundargarh, Orissa.

Account not lodged at all. 139—Rourkela

6.

Sh. Pravat NaJini Mohanty, Qr. No. B/116, Sector-20, RourkcJa, Orissa.

Account not lodged at aJl. 139->Rourk"!a

7.

Sh. Subash Dwivedi, •Qr. No. C/J15, Sector-2, Rourkela, Orissa_

Account not lodged at a!J 139—Rourkcla

8

Sh, Devika Mahato, B/386, Koelnagar, Rourkcla-J4,

' 'Oriss;'.

Account not lodged at all 140^-Raghunalhpali

9.

Sh. Johnson Anil Bhengra, Fcrtjjizer Town, Qr. No. C/23I> Rourkela 769007, Orissa.

Accountnot Ibdged at all. 140—Ragbunathpali

10.

Sli. Ignace Tirkey> AT/P.O. : Jhirpani, Rourkela, Distiicl : Sundargarh, Orissa.

Account not lodged at all. 140— Raghunathpali

11.

Sh. Kishore Chandra Naik, Vi!!. : Gopapali, P O. : Vedvyas, District : Sundargarh, Orissa.

Account not lodged at all. 140—Raghunathpali

12.

Sh. Sura Oram, Vil!./P.O. : Jhirpani, District : Sundargarh, Orissa421 4 3 1 2 Account not lodged at all in - i ) ii (i r i

}

Sh. Baikuntha Daiei, AT/P 0 : Jhirdapafii, District : Sundargarh, Orissa

Account not lodged at alt.

Sh. Basudev Kishan,

14

. 141—Bonai (ST)

AT : Hatikucha, P.O. : Gopna, District : Sundargarh, Orissa.

[No. 76/OR-LA/2001]

By Order

GHANSHYAM KHOHAR, Secy.

Printed by the Mwajier, Ciovl. of India Press, Rind Road, New Delhi-110064 ard Puhliihed by the C'Outroller of Pwblicatigns, Pelhi-] 10054. 2001