झारखÖड गजट

असाधारण अंक

झारखÖड सरकार ɮवारा Ĥकाͧशत

20 पौष, 1944 (श०)

संÉ या – 4 राँची, मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023 (ई०)

मंǒğमंडल (Ǔनवा[चन) ͪवभाग

--------

अͬधसूचना

10 जनवरȣ, 2023

संÉया-02/Ǔन०Û या०वा०-16-16/2015/01--भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग कȧ अͬधसूचना संÉया-

82/पूव[ अनु०-1/झार०-ͪव०स०/(08/2015)/2022 Ǒदनांक-23 Ǒदसà बर, 2022 ɮवारा Ǔनवा[चन अजȸ

सं०-08/2015 मɅ Ǒदये गये उÍच Ûयायालय, झारखÖ ड, राँची के तारȣख 21 नवà बर, 2022 के आदेश

से संबंͬधत अͬधसूचना को राजकȧय गजट के असाधारण अंक मɅ Ĥकाशनाथ[ ।

झारखÖड राÏयपाल के आदेश से,

के० रͪव कुमार,

मुÉ य Ǔनवा[चन पदाͬधकारȣ-सह सͬचव ।

झारखÖड गजट (असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग

--------

अͬधसूचना

23 Ǒदसà बर, 2022/2 पौष, 1944 शक

संÉया- 82/पूव[ अनु०-1/झार०-ͪव०स०/(08/2015)/2022--लोक ĤǓतǓनͬध×व अͬधǓनयम 1951

(1951 का 43) कȧ धारा 106 (ख) के अनुसरण मɅ, भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग एतदɮवारा Ǔनवा[चन अजȸ

सं० 08/2015 मɅ Ǒदये गये उÍ च Û यायालय, झारखÖ ड, रांची के तारȣख 21 नवà बर, 2022 के आदेश

को Ĥकाͧशत करता है ।

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Election Petition No. 08 of 2015

Roshan Lal Choudhary

……

Petitioner

Versus

Nirmala Devi

Deepak Kumar Das

Manoj Kumar Sinha

Ramendra Kumar

Shivlal Mahto

Sanjeev Kumar

Aniruddh Kumar

Anand Kishor Paswan

Binod Rana

10. Bitu Kumar

11. Shahid Ali

12. Heera Gope

13. Anupam Kumar Pathak

14. Kartik Mahto

15. Gautam Tiwari

16. Dropadi Devi

17. Prabhu Oraon

18. Mrityunjay Vishwakarma

19. Leeladhan Saw

20. The Returning Officer, 22 Barkagaon Assembly Constituency, District-Ramgarh

……

Respondent

---------

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent no. 1

: Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate

For the Respendent no. 20 : M/s Vikash Pandey & J.K. Mishra, Advocates

C.A.V. ON 03.08.2022

PRONOUNCED ON 21/11/2022

This election petition has been filed under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 to set aside the election of the returned candidate

respondent Nirmala Devi and declare the petitioner elected from 22, Barkagaon Assembly

Constituency in 2014 election.

PETITIONER'S CASE

Case of the election petitioner is that election commission of India notified the

assembly elections in the state which were to be held in five phases in the month of November

– December, 2014. District Social Welfare Officer, Ramgarh was appointed as the returning

officer for holding the elections at 22, Barkagaon assembly constituency. The election was to

be held in five phases in the month of November and December, 2014.

The petitioner Roshan Lal Choudhary had been nominated by AJSU Party as its

official candidate and Respondent no.1 Nirmala Devi had been nominated by the Indian

National Congress. The petitioner was the main candidate of National Democratic Alliance

(N.D.A). As per the election program, calling was held on 9.12.2014 by Electronic Voting

Machines for 22 Barkagaon Assembly Constituency in which there were 368 number of

booths.

The counting of votes was held at Ramgarh College on 14 tables. The votes were

counted on four tables up to 27^th around and on rest of the tables up to 26^th round. After

counting Respondent Nirmala Devi, the returned candidate was wrongly, illegally and on the

basis of void votes received by her, was declared elected on the ground that she had secured

61, 796 votes, defeating the Election Petitioner who had received only 61,341 votes.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

It is claimed that the Election Petitioner had received maximum valid votes and

therefore he should have been declared elected.

Challenging the election of respondent is on the ground of making false

declaration/affidavit in Form 26 of the nomination form and on the ground of having received

huge number of void votes. Sections 17 and 18 provide that no person shall be registered in

more than one Constituency or be registered more than once in any Constituency. Respondent

no.1 Nirmala Devi in her nomination paper filed before the Returning Officer had mentioned

that she was of voter at Sl. No.423 of Booth No.27 having Voter Identity Card No. MKJ

09332721 of 22, Barkagaon Legislative Constituency. Respondent no.1 Nirmala Devi, was

also voter of Booth No. 28, Sl. No. 927 of that constituency and see by making false and illegal

declaration and by manipulations and got her name registered in the Electoral Roll of two

different Booths in the same constituency so that she could cast more than one vote. She

manipulated and inserted her name at two different places in the same constituency and made

false declarations in Form 26 after nomination form and had thereby committed an offence

under the provisions of section 31 of the Act.

It is also averred that the Returned Candidate herself along with her help, support,

consent and collusion, of more than 1000 of voters had got themselves registered at two

different places in the same constituency so that they may cast more than one vote in favour of

Nirmala Devi, the Returned Candidate. It is also stated that in the dissolved House, husband of

Respondent Nirmala Devi namely Yogendra Saw was the Member of Legislative Assembly

from the same constituency. It is asserted that the persons referred to in Annexure-3 have

casted more than one vote in favour of Respondent No.1. This was in violation of section 62 of

the Act. The courts casted by such voters and different Booths are to be declared void which

have been illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate need deduction from the total

votes in her favour.

It is also averred that there had been large-scale poll rigging on the date of Polling

date i.e. on 9.12.2014 at several of the Booths at the instance of and with consent and collusion

of said returned candidates. Reference has been made to Booth No. 113 (Total number of votes

– 857, number of Paul votes – 959) Booth No. 185 (total voters – 643, number of Paul votes –

550), Booth No. 335 (total voters – 606 number of Paul votes - 519), Booth No. 363 (total

voters –24, number of Paul votes – 703) where the polling percentage was more than 85%

which considering the number of voters was highly inflated and improbable. On these Booths,

the respondent Nirmala Devi had received maximum votes. The voting time was 7 AM to 3

PM about eight hours. Average voting per hour could be maximum 30-40 votes.

There had been noticeable differences in the number of votes actually told and

mentioned in form – 17 C to that of the number of votes actually counted mentioned in form

17 A. For example, at Booth No.36 of the constituency, in the Form 17 C mention subtotal 665

numbers of Paul votes, however, at the time of counting from the same Booth 671 number of

ports have been considered. The discrepancy of votes actually polled and counted is being

reflected in table form:-

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

Sl No.

Booth No.

Total No. of

Polled Votes

Total No. of

Votes Counted

Difference

665

671

585

515

-70

148

582

682

+100

152

850

859

+09

161

676

675

-01

172

322

537

+215

178

926

922

-04

229

893

527

-366

262

302

304

+02

10.

269

255

261

+06

11.

295

433

415

+18

12.

323

1252

969

-283

13.

333

720

620

-100

14.

341

613

611

-02

15.

365

672

669

-03

10.

The discrepancy with respect to votes polled and mentioned in Form 17 A and 17 C

to that of the counted votes had been noticeable which ought to have been brought to the notice

of the election commission as per the guidelines. The CCTV recording of EVM machines was

purposely interrupted and stopped. The valid votes of the petitioner were not counted, but

invalid votes of the respondent Devi in postal ballots were counted in her favour. Most of the

votes polled by the returned candidate were barred votes.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS

11.

Respondent no.1 Nirmala Devi, appeared and filed a written statement. It is averred

that the public opinion was in favour of the answering respondent and the petitioner had no

chance to win the election. Petitioner having lost the election is trying to get himself declared

successful by institution of frivolous litigations which are devoid of any merit. The answering

respondent one the election on the basis of valid votes.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

12.

It has been denied that the respondent had sworn any false affidavit in the

nomination paper. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers no objection from any

corner was raised. The answering respondent has no information or knowledge to the effect

that her name is also there as a voter of Booth No.28, Serial No.927 of 22, Barkagaon

Assembly Constituency. The petitioner had never applied for inclusion of a name in the said

booth, nor had the ever casting vote in the said booth. It is further asserted that this petitioner

had no knowledge about the inclusion of some of the voters in two different places of the same

constituency. There is nothing on record to suggest in whose favour such voters had cast their

vote. As the election was conducted by secret ballot, it is not known in whose favour the

persons had cast their vote.

13.

The petitioner had an opportunity to raise objection in the light of section 62 of the

Representation of People Act.

14.

The election officer and the authorities entrusted with the election duty had rejected

large number of illegal votes and only valid book votes had been counted.

15.

Respondent No.7 Anirudh Kumar, who also contested the election, has filed

separate written statement. He has supported the case of the plaintiff that there had been

apparent violation of rules and regulations in preparation of the electoral role and observance

of model code of conduct. There had been wide scale malpractice, which has materially

affected the result of the election thereby frustrating the mandate of the people. The returned

candidate got her name and the names of near and dear one inserted at two different Booths in

the same constituency so that they could cast their vote more than once. It has been asserted

that there are more than 1200 voters who have their names at two different places in the same

constituency. It has also been alleged that the voters and supporters were threatened by the

supporters of the returned candidate.

16.

Respondent no.20 is the returning officer of the said constituency. It is averred that

out of 1024 names are listed to be figuring twice in the electoral rolls, there are only 765

persons whose names have been recorded in two different electoral rolls. Out of the 765

persons only 171 persons have voted twice. The claim of the petitioner raised to fresh pleading

raised by I.A No.5165 of 2016, claiming that of 305+45 that is 350 persons having voted twice

and 10 persons having voted three times contained in Annexure –1 series was fit to be rejected

as it was beyond the pleadings. Similar pleas having been taken in this I.A No.5165 of 2016,

being beyond the pleading was fit to be rejected.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

17.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed:

Whether the Election Petition for the relief (s) claimed therein by the petitioner is

maintainable and fit to be allowed?

II.

Whether respondent no.1 Nirmala Devi got her name inserted at two places that is at

Sl. No. 423 of Booth No.27 and SI. No.927 at Booth No.28 of 22, Barkagaon

Assembly Constituency and thereby violated the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

III. Whether Respondent no.1 Nirmala Devi got benefit due to double voting made by

about thousands of voters who got their name entered at two places and they voted?

IV. Whether the result of the election has materially been affected due to difference of

votes polled as stated in Form 17 A and votes counted as stated in Form 17 C?

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected?

VI. For what relief the petitioner is entitled in this case?

18.

Altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Election Petitioner

and the following documents have been adduced into evidence:

Ext 1

- W.S. (R-20) dated 18.01.2016 (entire)

Ext 1/1 - Signature of Monika Rani Tuti (at page 60)

Ext 2

- I.A. – 1188 / 16 (entire) Result of Inspection

Ext 2/1 - Signature of Election Petitioner (at page 12)

Ext 3

- C.A. (RO) to I.A. 3849/17 (entire)

Ext 3/1 - Signature of Monika Rani Tuti (R.O.)

Ext 4

- I.A. No. 5949/ 15 (entire I.A.)

Ext 5

- Annexure 4 (Interrogatories) in I.A. No. 4243/ 16

Ext 6

- Relevant Portion of order dated 03.02.2017 (O/s)

Ext 7

- Annexure B of S.A. (R.O.) dated 18.04.2017.

Ext 1/2 - Para 44 of W.S. (R-20) dated 18.01.2016 (at page 34)

Ext 1/3 - Para 45 of W.S. (R-20) dated 18.01.2016 (at page 35)

Ext 7/1 - The Signature of Kuldip Mahto in SA (R.O.) (of Exhibits 7)

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

19.

One Document has been marked as Ext. A on behalf of the defence.

Issue No.II

20.

It is admitted position that there had been dual entries of the returned candidate as

well as some other voters. Returning officer R-20 has admitted in that there were 765 such

cases of dual entries, out of which 171 voters had cast their vote twice. It is the Electoral

Registration Officer (ERO) who prepares the voter-list, therefore if there are evidence of

repetitions of the names in the voter list, it is the ERO who is responsible for the same and not

the returned candidate, unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence on record

to show that the returned candidate was in any manner responsible for the dual entries. It has

been held in (1996) 4 SCC 53 that inclusion of name of voter in the electoral roll of more than

one constituency or at more than one place in the same constituency shall not render the

election void.

This issue is, accordingly, is answered in the negative against the election petitioner.

21.

Issue nos.III and IV are taken together.

The main plea of the Election Petitioner is that returned candidate won election by

slender margin of 411 no. of votes, and this margin was due to dual cast of votes by her

supporters and family members who had got their names entered in two places in different

electoral booths. In support of this contention, in Para-45 of the written statement filed by

respondent no.20, who is Returning Officer, 22 Barkagaon Constituency is cited wherein it

stated that there were 171 candidates whose names had been entered at two places and that

they had voted twice. This is not going to materially affect the election result, as even if the

dual votes cast by these 171 persons/votes is deducted, it will reduce the total called votes by

342 and not materially affect the result. Further, in secret ballot no inference can be drawn on

whose side these dual votes had been cast. Even if it is accepted that there had been dual

voting, an inference cannot be drawn that voting favoured the returned candidate.

The plaintiff has failed to prove that the double voting resorted to by some of the

voters benefited the returned candidate so as to materially affect the election result.

Both these issues are, accordingly, answered in the negative against the election

petitioner.

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

22.

In view of the above findings the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief sought for.

Issues Nos. I, V and VI are answered against the Election Petitioner.

The suit is dismissed on contest. Parties shall bear their own cost.

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.,

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated the 21^st November, 2022

AFR / AKT

आदेश से,

अरͪवÛ द आनÛ द,

Ĥधान सͬचव

भारत Ǔनवा[चन आयोग

झारखÖडगजट(असाधारण) मंगलवार, 10 जनवरȣ, 2023

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

--------

NOTIFICATION

23^rd December, 2022/ 2 Pausa, 1944 (Saka)

No. 82/ES-1/JKD-LA/(08/2015)/2022 --In pursuance of Section 106(b) of the Representation

of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes Order dated the 21^st

November, 2022 of the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Election Petition No. 08 of 2015.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Election Petition No. 08 of 2015

Roshan Lal Choudhary

……

Petitioner

Versus

21. Nirmala Devi

22. Deepak Kumar Das

23. Manoj Kumar Sinha

24. Ramendra Kumar

25. Shivlal Mahto

26. Sanjeev Kumar

27. Aniruddh Kumar

28. Anand Kishor Paswan

29. Binod Rana

30. Bitu Kumar

31. Shahid Ali

32. Heera Gope

33. Anupam Kumar Pathak

34. Kartik Mahto

35. Gautam Tiwari

36. Dropadi Devi

37. Prabhu Oraon

38. Mrityunjay Vishwakarma

39. Leeladhan Saw

40. The Returning Officer, 22 Barkagaon Assembly Constituency, District-Ramgarh