Delhi District Court
Smt. Geeta W/O Sh. Vimal vs Anupama Tripathi on 6 March, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE: (NORTH-WEST)-II: ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 96/2008
Smt. Geeta W/o Sh. Vimal
R/o 1/18-A, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cant., Delhi.
..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Anupama Tripathi
D/o Sh. B. D. Tripathi
R/o T-4A, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cant., Delhi
2. Ms. Kamlesh Dutt
D/o Sh. H. D. Tripathi,
R/o T-4A, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cantt, Delhi.
3. Ms. Lakshimi Devi
W/o Shri Hira Singh
V-30, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cant., Delhi
4. Ms. Lalita Dutt
D/o Sh. H. D. Tripathi
T-4-A, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cant., Delhi
5. Ms. Manisha
W/o Sh. Vyas
1/219, Ch. Hari Chand Building,
Sadar Bazar,
Delhi Cant.
-: 1 :-
6. The President,
Delhi Cantonment Board,
Through its Cantonment Executive Officer
Delhi Cant. Board, Delhi
7. Sh. S. M. Bharadwaj,
Returning Officer,
Delhi Cantonment Board,
Delhi Cant.
8. The Chief Executive Officer,
Delhi Cant. Board,
Delhi Cant.
..... Respondents
Date of Institution: 26.5.2008
Arguments Heard on: 1.2.2010
Last date for filing the written synopsis: 4.3.2010
Date of Decision: 6.3.2010
-: J U D G M E N T : -
This petition under Rule 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 60
of Delhi Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2006 has been filed
by the election petitioner Smt. Geeta, seeking declaration to
the effect that the election held on 18th May 2008 of
respondent no.1 for Cantonment Board from Ward no.7 be
declared illegal and null and void and further directions that
she be declared as elected candidate. The brief facts of the
-: 2 :-
case are as under:
BRIEF FACTS:
Petitioner's Case:
According to the petitioner, she is a resident of Delhi Cant. and her name appears at S.No.445 Ward No.7, Delhi Cant. and had contested election from Ward No.7 for the Delhi Cantonment Board held on 18.5.2008. It is stated that the Delhi Cantonment Board is a Cantonment as defined in Section 3 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 which is a body Corporate having Perpetual Succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property both movable and immovable and to contract and can be sued and to be sued in the same name. As defined in Section 10 & 11 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, the Delhi Cantonment Board is a Class-I, Cantonment as civilian population exceed 50,000.
It is stated that the section 12(3) of the Cantonment Act provides that Board shall consists of the following members, namely, -: 3 :- a. The officer commanding the station as ex officio or, the Central Government so directs in respect of any cantonment, such other military officer as may be nominated in his place by the General Officer Commanding-in- Chief, the Command;
b. The District Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate nominated by him;
c. The Chief Executive Officer;
d. The Health Officer ex officio;
e. The Executive Engineer ex officio;
f. Name of the Officer commanding the station by order in writing;
g. Eight members elected under this Act.
According to the petitioner the term of the office of members as defined in Section 14 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is a period of 5 years and every board for the purposes of election is to prepare electoral roll as provided under Section 27 of the Cantonment Act, 2007 and Cantonment is to -: 4 :- be divided into wards and the electoral roll is to be prepared separately for each ward. Section 15 of the Cantonment Act provides that the vacancy arising by efflux of time in the office of elected members of the Board shall be filed by ordinary election to be held on such date as the Central Government may by notification of the office direct and after such notification for these purposes a notice was issued under Rule 20 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 for holding ordinary elections for eight Wards of Delhi Cantonment Board on 18.5.08 and the said notice duly contains the details of the Ward and the polling stations.
It is pleaded that the petitioner filed her nomination and stood as a candidate from Congress (I) party for the elections from Ward No. 7 of Delhi Cantonment Board and alongwith the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 to 5 were also candidates and respondent No.1 was declared elected having secured 2053 votes while the petitioner secured 1735 votes which declaration was totally illegal for the reasons stated hereinafter in this petition. It is stated that the respondent -: 5 :- No.1 contested the election from National Party 'BJP' having symbol 'Lotus'. The counting of the election took place on 19.5.2008 and the total number of voters in Ward No. 7 are 8492 as per the electoral roll. The number of polling stations for ward No. 7 were eight and were located at different places and but at the eleventh hour for no reasons without any discussion and with ulterior motives in order to favour the respondent No.1, the respondent No. 7 changed the location of polling station 62 and 63 at MES sub station, CVD, Delhi Cant. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said polling station was not located at well known place and were away from the residence of the voters causing a lot of inconvenience to the voters with the result that a number of voters who wanted to vote in favour of the petitioner, could not vote and this was done malafidely to favour respondent No.1. It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 in connivance with political leaders such as Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra (Member of Parliament), Prof. Jagdish Mukhi (Member of Opposite of the Delhi Assembly) and Shri Kanwar Singh Tawar (MLA) tried to influence the voters by -: 6 :- bribing them and also by extending threats, thereby materially affecting the results of the election. As per the allegations, the respondent No.1 also joined hands with the respondent No. 6 to 8 and adopted corrupt practices in the election with their aid and assistance.
According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 and her party colleagues had been giving cash amount, liquor, gifts to the public and on the complaint of the workers of the petitioner, the police seized vehicle bearing No. DL-3CAA- 1079 vide DD No. 33A on 13.5.08 under Section 32/133 DP Act and Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Raj Kumar R/o V-187 Old Nangli, Delhi Cantt, Delhi and Shri Balbir Singh S/o Satnir Singh R/o V 15, Old Nangli, Delhi Cant., Delhi were arrested alongwith a number of sarees and propaganda material i.e. handbills, papers, posters belonging to respondent No. 1 which is a conclusive evidence to show that they were influencing the voters. The petitioner brought out the said fact to the notice of respondent No. 7 but to no avail and the respondent No.6 to 8 was keen to see that in no circumstances the petitioner win the elections, therefore, at back of the -: 7 :- petitioner issued/circulated letter bearing No. F. RO/ DCB/ ELECTION/ 2008 dated 17.5.2008 at the instance of Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra (Member of Parliament), Shri Jagdish Mukhi (Leader of Opposition) and Shri Karan Singh Tanwar (MLA) and the respondent No. 6 directed that certain proofs of identity should not be accepted as a proof of identity which has been done by the respondent No. 6 solely with the motive that the voters who are jhuggi dwellers and poor people not may have the other proof of identity should be deprived of their right to cast their votes as the trend of voters clearly indicated voter mood in faovur of petitioner and therefore hundreds of voters were deprived of their right to cast their votes. It is pleaded that no such earlier notice was issued or widely published and it was never given to the petitioner though it has been mentioned that the copy given to all the candidates but no such copy was ever supplied or brought to the notice of the petitioner which came to the notice of the petitioner in the middle of election when half of the election was already over and number of voters were returned without casting their votes and respondent No. 7 was not prepared to -: 8 :- cooperate or listen to petitioner in this regard. The said circular subsequently withdrawn but not widely publicized and therefore the polling officer returned hundred of voters for want of identification and vote of such voters was improperly refused to be received.
It is further stated that on 19.5.2008 at the time of counting of votes hundreds of votes polled in favour of the petitioner were rejected malafidely and deliberately though those were clearly marked in favour of the petitioner and it was the duty of the Returning Officer to provide instruments for stamping, distributing mark of the ballot papers and the articles necessary for the electors to mark the ballot papers. The electoral mark which was provided by the Returning Officer was in the shape of horizontal stick of wood about 2-3 inch having a rubber stamp on Swastik mark of one side which was very poor in quality. In many of such sticks the Swastik mark did not remain on it after one hour or two hours and even in those one or two hours those were not marking it properly. It is stated that in polling booth No. 56, out of 145 votes declared invalid, 102 votes were casted in favour of the -: 9 :- petitioner. In polling booth No. 57 out of 185 invalid votes about 107 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. In polling booth No.58 out of 177 invalid votes, 97 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. In polling booth No. 59, out of 153 votes declared invalid, 121 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. In polling booth No.60, about 124 votes were rejected out of which 77 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. In polling booth No. 61 where 86 votes were rejected 70 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner. In polling booth No. 63 where 58 votes were rejected 42 votes were casted in favour of the petitioner and therefore, a total of 679 votes casted in favour of the petitioner and were declared invalid which clearly shows the intention of the voters in favour of the petitioner which was marked with the same article which was provided by the Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, the declaration of such votes invalid has materially affected the result of election and if those votes were counted in favour of the petitioner, she would have been elected. It is further alleged that in Ward No.7 the ballot paper marked with one particular stamp -: 10 :- instrument were improperly rejected on the one hand while in Ward No.5, the same were accepted and this application of dual standards resulted in rejection of 1066 votes in ward No. 7 out of which 679 votes polled in favour of the petitioner. According to the election petitioner, the ballot papers were also not in the proper shape and form as required. The ballot papers were not having any counter foil to obtain signatures of the elector on the same which illegality resulted in bogus voting and has materially affected the election result. It is stated that the perusal of the results of the election would show that the petitioner has lost the election only by 318 votes whereas 679 votes casted in favour of the petitioner have been declared invalid which materially affected the result of the election, though the above said corrupt practices and irregularities were adopted in the election for which the election held on 18.5.2008 declared on 19.5.2008 declaring the respondent No. 1 as elected is required to be set aside and by appropriate orders the petitioner is required to be elected candidate from Ward No.7. It is further alleged that deliberately and malafidely the counterfoils of the ballot paper -: 11 :- were not got signed nor the thumb impression of the voters were taken with the sole motive to promote the bogus voting thus large number of bogus voting were done in favour of the respondent No.1 which materially affected the result of the election and all the respondents, joined hands with each other in order to defeat the petitioner and were not following the procedure as laid down under the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007.
It is pleaded that each candidate was allowed to appoint one person as his/her election agent by power of attorney and only then such agent was entitled to act like that of candidate, but in the present case none of the respondents appointed election agent by power of attorney, yet unauthorised persons, who had no power of attorney, were entertained as the election agent who were friendly moving around in every polling station, counting station since the respondent No.7 issued them the identity card to this effect. According to the election petitioner, since the Returning Officer under the instructions of respondent No. 6 did not hold the elections and the counting as per the rules and did not -: 12 :- follow the rules, the election so held are required to be declared invalid.
Respondent's Case:
The respondent no.1 i.e. the returned candidate has filed her written statement wherein she has denied all the allegations made against her by the election petitioner. It has been denied that she in connivance with Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra, MP or Professor Jagdish Mukhi, Leader of Opposition in Delhi Assembly or Shri Karan Tanwar, MLA or otherwise tried to influence any voter by bribing or by extending any threat. According to the respondent no.1, no particulars of the allegations of corrupt practices have been given and the name of a single person who was offered any bribe or extended any threat has not been mentioned. It is stated that the place, date, time of the alleged elections or the person(s) who was involved in it or the name of any person who witnessed it is missing from the election petition and therefore, the election petition does not constitute any cause of action. It is also pleaded that the respondent no.1 has no -: 13 :- connection with the alleged vehicle No. DL 3CAA 1079 or the alleged material contained in it or the persons allegedly arrested in this connection. It is further stated that the election staff and the polling officers are under a duty to ascertain and satisfy themselves that a person applying for a ballot paper is the person who represents himself to be and is entitled to receive a ballot paper, which Rule is in the interest of democracy and to prevent impersonation and bogus voting. In appropriate circumstances, a polling officer can ask the person intending to vote, to adduce evidence in proof of his identity. It came to the knowledge of Bhartiya Janta Party that the petitioner and her party had obtained bogus rickshaw licences, dependent cards and had also got made railway passes in the names of bogus voters to rig the election and distort the Will of the people which apprehension was communicated to the Returning Officer and presumably upon consideration of the said communication, the Circular No. F/ RO/ DCB/ ELECTION/ 2008 dated 17.5.2008 was issued by the Returning Officer. However, for reasons best known to the Returning Officer, the circular was withdrawn on the -: 14 :- morning of the polling without consulting the respondent no.1 and her party and in any case, the said circular did not cause any loss to the petitioner as in Ward No. 7 the identity of no elector was challenged under Rule 44 of the Rules and therefore, the occasion to require evidence and proof of identity of any elector did not arise.
According to the respondent no.1, the counting of votes was held on only one table and as per Rule 49 of the Rules, all candidates who choose to be present at the counting were allowed to watch the counting. The petitioner and her election agent were present at the time of counting and before rejecting any ballot paper, the returning officer allowed each candidate, including the petitioner and her election agent a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot paper. Thereafter the returning officer recorded on every ballot paper which he rejected, the grounds for rejection in abbreviated form and initialed the same but the petitioner or her agent did not raise any objection whatsoever upon the rejection of any ballot paper by the returning officer and after the counting was completed, the result of the counting was recorded in form -: 15 :- XA. The returning officer also prepared return in Form XI of the result of the polling and the petitioner and her election agent did not raise any objection even at this stage upon the counting or upon the rejection of any ballot paper by the returning officer. Even after the declaration of result and till the filing of the election petition, the election petitioner has not represented in any manner about the counting or the declaration of result to the returning officer or any other authorities. It is stated that in respect of each voting paper, the election petitioner was in a position to set out precisely his objection for its acceptance or its rejection and was also in a position to note down the ballot paper numbers. According to the respondent no.1, it was necessary to the petitioner to note down the number of the ballot papers so as to make precise allegations as to how the said ballot paper sought or ought not to have been rejected and the allegations made by the election petitioner are vague and general and the petitioner is seeking a recount which would lead to a fishing inquiry with a view to find out sufficient material to support the petitioner's case. It is pleaded that the election is a technical matter and therefore, -: 16 :- the authorities chose experienced persons to do the counting and took every possible care to see that the members of staff do not commit any mistake. Moreover, the relief of recounting cannot be accepted merely of upon possibility of their being any error. It is stated that no complaint was made during the counting about such a large number of votes allegedly polled in favour of the election petitioner having been rejected and no complaint was made even after the counting. It is further stated that the instrument is usually a piece of wood, in a cuboid shape on both of ends of which are glued, the rubber stamps containing a swastika mark and an elector has to put this swastika mark on the ballot paper. All ballot papers where an elector has put swastik mark in a way that his intention to vote for any candidate could be discerned has been counted and the votes which did not bear the proper mark or were otherwise have been rejected. It is stated that Rule 41 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure for the supply of ballot papers to the electors and the method of voting and it does not require the polling officer to obtain the signatures or thumb impression of the -: 17 :- elector on the counter foil of the ballot paper. It is further stated that even in the conduct of election Rules, 1961 the requirement of obtaining signatures or thumb impression of an elector on counter foil of the ballot paper was introduced only in the year 1979 and in the absence of any provision to obtain signatures or thumb impression of an elector on the counter foil of the ballot papers, the polling officers could not require the same from any elector.
The respondent nos. 6 to 8 have also filed their written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has not supplied proof of deposit of Rs.3,000/- and in case, the amount has not been deposited within the statutory period of limitation, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the petitioner has made false and fabricated averments against the respondents and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
On merits, it is stated that the allegations have been made without any basis. According to the respondents, the respondent No.6 was the Brigadier of Armed Forces at the time of conducting of elections and was doing his duty for the -: 18 :- peaceful and fair conduct of elections being President of the Cantonment Area and the allegations against the respondent No. 4 are simply flimsy and figment of imagination of the petitioner and the same are without any merit or any basis. It is further stated that the letter bearing No. FRO/ DCB/ Election/ 2008 dated 17.5.2008 was immediately withdrawn on the advise of the President Cantonment Board Delhi Cant. and as per the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 the returning officer shall appoint polling officer who shall be in-charge of the voting arrangements and responsible for fair conduct of elections at his polling station. As per Rule 40 of the said Rules, the polling officer has been authorised to verify the identity of the elector and has been further authorised to put any questions that may be suggested by a candidate or an election agent. It is stated that in view of the fact that no complaint was received in respect of any person who has not been allowed to vote on the basis of letter dated 17.4.2008, the ground alleged by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The allegations of the petitioner that he was not given the copy of the said letter, has been denied. It is also denied that -: 19 :- number of voters were returned without casting their vote and it is stated that no such complaint was received by the respondent No.7. According to the respondents, the respondent no.7 has rejected the ballot papers as per rules.
The record reveals that the respondent no.2 to 5 never appeared before this court and were proceeded exparte. ISSUES FRAMED:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this court has vide order dated 17.7.2008 framed the following issues:
1. Whether the suit discloses no cause of action? (OPP)
2. Whether the allegations made against the respondent by the election petitioner in para 10, 11 and 12 are correct?
If yes, then whether it would materially affect the result of the elections? (OPP)
3. Whether the votes have been improperly accepted/ rejected? If yes, then whether it would materially affect the result of the elections? (OPP) -: 20 :-
4. Whether there has been non compliance of the provisions of The Cantonment Act, 1924 and Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 as alleged in the petition? If yes, then whether it materially affects the result of the elections?
(OPP)
5. Whether the Circular issued on 17.5.2008 was properly conveyed to the election petitioner and the effect of the same on the result of the elections? (OPP)
6. Whether the election of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside under the electoral rules and the petitioner is liable to be declared duly elected in place of respondent no.1 as the member of the Cantonment Board from Ward No. 7? (OPP)
7. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
In order to discharge upon her, the election petitioner has examined as many as 5 witnesses. She has examined herself as PW1 and in her examination in chief by way of affidavit has corroborated what he has earlier stated in -: 21 :- the main petition. She has placed on record the notice under Rule 20 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 which is Ex.PW1/1; copy of the letter bearing no. FRO/ DCB/ Election/ 2008 dated 17.5.2008 which is Ex.PW1/2; the cancellation letter dated 18.5.2008 which is Ex.PW1/3 and photographs of the vehicles which are Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6.
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that her husband is an activist of Indian National Congress and they have been working in the party for 14 years. According to her, polling station nos. 62 & 63 fell in ward no. 6 in the previous elections and their locations were at Central Vehicle Depot whereas in the present elections they were located at MES Awwa Cell and were shifted to MES Sub Station of which she came to know on 18.5.2008. She has denied that she had advance information of the location of the said polling booths and has stated that she is not aware if the location of the polling station was changed by a written order by the President of the Cantonment Board on 6.5.2008. She is -: 22 :- not aware if a copy of the said order was pasted on the public notice board in the office of the Returning Officer. She is also not aware of the names of any elector who complaint to her about the change of location of the polling booths. She has deposed that she had appointed polling agents for all booths including polling booth no. 62 & 63 and admits that her polling agents and relief agents attended the polling booth no. 62 & 63 from the morning itself. The witness has further deposed that she did not file any protest about the change of location of the polling booth and is unable to give the name of a single voter who did not vote due to change of location of the polling booth. According to her, about 50-60 persons complained to her after the close of poll that they could not vote because of the confusion of change of location of polling booth. PW1 has further testified that she personally knew the Returning Officer and the then President of the Delhi Cantonment Board and the respondent no.1 has no relation with the Returning Officer. PW1 has admitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 were performing their officials duties but states that the respondents no. 6 & 7 were performing -: 23 :- their duties under the influence of BJP which fact she realized when the location of the polling booth was changed on the date of election and also since the respondent no. 6 was moving around in his uniform on the polling date and was asking the polling staff to allow the polling of uniformed service personnel without proof of identity. She has deposed that she made a complaint about it after the declaration of the vote results to Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj, but he took no action.
The witness has admitted that if any polling agent objects to the identity of any voter he has to fill up the form and deposit a sum of Rs.100/- with it. She has admitted that she has not given the name of Sh. Govinder Singh, who was returned back because of the lack of the documentary proof of identity. She is not aware the name of any single elector who was offered any bribe or given any threat by Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra. According to her, a white Qualis was seized by the police with sarees and cash in it but she does not remember its number. She has deposed that the police manipulated the records to show that there were no sarees or cash in it and it was seized only for the loud speakers fitted in it which was -: 24 :- done at the instance and under the influence of sitting MLA. The witness has denied that no offer or promise was made by Ms. Anupama Tripathi or her election agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or her agent to any person whomsoever for any purpose. She has admitted that she had never seen the said vehicle nor Sanjay nor Balbir nor the records of the police about sarees or cash. She has further deposed that on the day of polling, the respondent no.6 was moving about and she saw him advising polling staff not to insist upon documentary proof of identity and admits that he was not canvassing for votes for the BJP. The witness has also deposed that the counting was done in their presence and admits that before rejecting any ballot paper the counter officer allowed them a reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot paper only after which it was rejected. She has further admitted that they had not complained about the rejection of any ballot paper at the time of counting but states that they had raised this grievance in the election petition. She further admits that they did not ask for re-counting and she does not remember how many votes were declared invalid in any -: 25 :- round. According to her, she came to know on 17.5.2008 about the issuance of circular no. ERO/DCB/Election/2008 and she does not know if the polling officers were informed before the start of the poll that the said circular has been withdrawn. She has denied that no voter was restrained from polling for lack of documentary proof of identity. PW1 has admitted that her polling agents at any of the polling booth did not formally challenge the identity of any elector by filling up the form and depositing the fee for it.
PW2 Vimal Chaudhary is the husband of the election petitioner and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has corroborated what has been stated by the election petitioner in toto.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted the correct list of polling booths which is Ex.PW2/D1 and that the location of polling booth no. 62 & 63 was changed vide order dated 6.5.2008 which is Ex.PW2/D2. According to him, after seeing the location of polling booths in order dated 2.5.2008 he had complained to the Returning Officer -: 26 :- that polling booth no. 62 & 63 are of CVD Lines and earlier both polling booths were located in one polling station and this time they were scattered. He has deposed that the SDM examined his complaint, found it correct and in remedial action corrected his mistake by passing the order Ex.PW2/D2. He has denied the suggestion that no voter was returned back because he had a rickshaw licenseor a railway pass as proof of identity. PW2 has further deposed that they had made a complaint to the Returning officer against the circular Ex.PW1/2 on the night of 17.5.2008 in his office at about 9:00 pm who acted upon their complaint and withdrew the circular Ex.PW1/2 on the morning of 18.5.2008. According to PW2, Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Sh. Jagdish Mukhi, Sh. Karan Singh Tanwar and the respondent no.1 did not give bribe or issue threats to any voter. He has admitted that he is not aware of any incident where any voter was given any bribe or threat at the instance of the above said persons or the election agent of Ms. Anupama Tripathi. -: 27 :-
The witness has further deposed that the photographs Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6 might have been taken by some worker who accompanied the election petitioner to police station. He has testified that he went to the police station where he was informed by the Duty Officer that the vehicle no. DL3CAA 1079 was impounded. According to him, he has seen the vehicle on which loud speakers were fitted and he was told that Sanjay Kumar and Balbir Singh who are the voters in Old Nangal Area were arrested by the police. PW2 has further deposed that he saw respondent no.6 in his Military uniform moving around in his ward in a normal way and he did not see him canvassing for respondent no.1 in the elections. The witness has stated that they together took down the number of votes rejected and the no. of votes improperly rejected in a small diary or a small paper which they had thrown away after loosing the election. According to him, he had heard from some persons that the Swastik Mark upon the Marking instrument was not properly glued.
-: 28 :-
Sh. V.K. Sethi, A.E. Delhi Cant. Board has been examined as PW3 who has proved the instruments for stamping and also the record of the rejected ballot papers. The entire election record including the ballot papers accepted or rejected were produced in the court. It is observed that as many as 23 instruments issued by the Returning Officer to the Polling Officer, out of which 16 instruments were those which have been used by the voters and the Swastik Mark on all the used and unused instruments are intact. According to the witness, as per rules 3 instruments were issued to each polling officer and in the present case there were 8 polling stations set up in Ward no.7 and 24 instruments were issued. In certain cases the voters walk away with the instruments due to which reason 1 instrument was not available with them which instrument was issued to the polling station no. 60.
This court has examined the ballot papers of polling station no. 60 and it has been observed that ballot papers have been rejected as they did not bear the stamping of the -: 29 :- instrument on the side bearing the Swastick mark and have been stamped on the horizontal side. 65 votes which were cast in favour of Geeta were rejected and 46 no. of votes cast in favour of Anupama Tripathi were rejected; 1 vote has been casted in favour of Lalita and 12 ballot papers have been rejected due to other reason. Total no. of 124 ballots were rejected.
In so far as the polling station no. 61 is concerned, it has been observed by this court that 37 votes which were casted in favour of Geeta have been rejected and 41 no. of votes have been casted in favour of Anupama Tripathi; 1 vote has been casted in favour of Kamlesh; 1 in favour of Manisha and 6 ballot papers have been rejected due to other reasons and a total no. of 86 ballots were rejected.
PW4 Vyas Chaudhary is the polling agent of election petitioner at booth no.56 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has supported the case of the election petition in toto.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he -: 30 :- reached the polling booth an hour before the polling and remained inside through out the polling hours and left the booth only after the closure of polling. According to him, he had challenged the identity of 2-3 voters and the BJP agent challenged the identity of 4-5 voters by filling up the objection form and deposit of Rs.100/- each for the objection. He has testified that probably 1 or 2 persons were not allowed to vote. He has admitted that no objection was raised against any voter trying to prove his identity on the basis of rickshaw license/ railway pass/ dependent card. PW4 has further deposed that only one instrument for stamping the ballot was issued at his booth on which the Swastick mark was not visible and when he inspected the instrument after lunch, it was found that some glue was sticking out of the margin of the Swastik rubber and there was no other problem with the Swastick rubber. According to PW4, there was no counter foil and the ballot papers were torn out from the book with the help of scale. He has further deposed that he did not see the President of Board nor hear him to say anything to anybody on the date of the poll nor did he see Anupama Tripathi or any -: 31 :- of her party colleague distributing any cash or liquor or gift to any person. He has testified that he had seen a while Qualis fitting with microphones doing propaganda for Geeta.
PW5 Prabhmeet Singh is also the polling agent of the election petitioner at booth no. 57 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit, has supported the case of the election petitioner in toto.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he did not challenge the identity of any voter at his booth and there was no bogus polling in his booth. He has stated that in the morning the Presiding officer stated that the rickshaw license/ dependent card/ railway passes were not adequate evidence of identity but he is unable to provide the name of any voter who returned without voting because of the said reason. According to him, they received copy of the circular on 17.5.2008 in this regard but he is not aware if the said circular was withdrawn on the morning of 18.5.2008. He has testified that only one or two instruments for stamping the ballot were issued at his booth and he had been told by somebody that the instrument had been torn off which he -: 32 :- informed to the polling officer who checked up his complaint and changed the instruments. According to him, the President of the Board was canvassing for BJP before the date of polling from the date of announcement of poll till evening of 17.5.2008 which he did in his full uniform. The witness has further testified that he did not see Anupama Trupathi or any of her party colleague distributing any cash or liquor or gift to any person.
In rebuttal the respondent no.1 Anupama Tripathi has examined herself as her witness as DW1 and in her examination in chief by way of affidavit she has corroborated what has been stated by her in her written statement.
In her cross-examination the witness has admitted that the circular Ex.PW1/2 was issued at the instance of Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Sh. Jagdish Mukhi and Sh. Karan Singh which circular was later on withdrawn at the instance of the election agent of the election petitioner. She is unable to tell the exact time when the withdrawal notice Ex.PW1/3 had reached the polling station no. 56 and 57 but states it had -: 33 :- reached before the start of polls but she is unable to produce any documentary proof in respect of the same. According to the witness, the polling stations were fixed one week prior to the elections. She is not aware whether any vehicle bearing no. DL 3CAA 1079 was seized vide DD no. 33A on 13.5.2008 under Section 32/113 DP Act and Sanjay Kumar and Balbir Singh were arrested alongwith handbill papers, posters belonging to her and the sarees.
The respondent no.7 S.M. Bhardwaj who was the Returning Officer has also examined himself as D7W1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit, he has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the written statement.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he had issued directions to Brig. Dhillon in respect of giving permission to the contesting candidates in the Army restricted for their canvassing. He is not aware what area of Ward no.7 falls in the Army Restricted Area nor does he remember the particulars of the contesting candidates who were granted the permission. According to him, the polling stations were -: 34 :- changed by the respondent no.6 but he is unable to tell whether the polling station no. 62 & 63 at MES Sub Station CVD, Delhi Cant. were not a well known places which areas are away from the residence of the voters of the said ward, causing inconvenience to the voters as a result of which no. of voters who wanted to vote in favour of the petitioner could not vote. He is also not aware if the police seized the vehicle no. DL-3CAA-1079 and whether the respondent no.6 was moving around in his uniform among the unit area as well as other polling stations. He has testified that he did not receive any complaint of respondent no.6 canvassing for respondent no.1. He has admitted that no counter foil was there alongwith the ballot papers to obtain the signatures of the elector on the same as it is not prescribed under the Rules. He further admits that the voting instrument used for marking the ballot papers were only provided by him and he did not receive any complaint that a voter had brought his own instrument for marking the ballots. The witness has also admitted that the intention of the voter can be very much gathered from the ballot paper carrying horizontal marks from -: 35 :- the instrument and states that as the same does not have the distinguishing mark of Swastik the same cannot be taken as valid. DW7 has admitted that the ballot papers carrying horizontal mark were declared valid inward no.5 but according to him, it was not in his knowledge till the ballot boxes were opened by this court in another petition titled as 'Nand Kishore vs. Lal Chand Mehrolia' The witness has deposed that he had sent the circular Ex.PW1/3 to the polling officers in the morning alongwith the ballot papers and he had sent the circular Ex.PW1/3 to the all the contesting candidates on 17.5.2008 itself through the CEO. According to the witness, he had received verbal communication from CEO that he had delivered the copy of Ex.PW1/3 to all the contesting candidates but no written document was sent to him in this regard. The witness has also placed on record the record pertaining to the appointment of election agents and counting agents of all the wars, copies of which record is collectively Ex.DW7/P1.
-: 36 :- FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the counsels for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the written synopsis of arguments filed. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue no.1 Whether the suit discloses no cause of action?
Onus of proving this issue was upon the respondent no.1. The case of the respondent no.1 is that there is no cause of action for the election petitioner to file the present petition. The term 'cause of action' would mean every fact which may be necessary for the petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support her right to the judgment. In so far as the present petition is concerned, it is an admitted case of the parties that the election petitioner and the respondent no.1 were the contesting candidates belonging to different political parties. The respondent no.1 is the returned candidate of the elections held to the Cantonment Board in the year 2008. She has challenged the result of the elections of the respondent no.1 on the various grounds as mentioned in the petition. Whether -: 37 :- or not she may succeed is a different issue but it cannot be said that there does not exist any cause of action as alleged by the respondent no.1. I find no merit in the objection raised. Issue is hereby decided in favour of the election petitioner and against the respondent no.1.
Issue no.2 Whether the allegations made against the respondent by the election petitioner in para 10, 11 and 12 are correct? If yes, then whether it would materially affect the result of the elections?
Issue no.3 Whether the votes have been improperly accepted/ rejected? If yes, then whether it would materially affect the result of the elections?
Issue no.4 Whether there has been non compliance of the provisions of The Cantonment Act, 1924 and Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 as alleged in the petition? If yes, then whether it materially affects the result of the elections? Issue no.5 Whether the Circular issued on 17.5.2008 was not properly conveyed to the election petitioner and the effect of the same on the result of the elections?
All the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving -: 38 :- all the issues was upon the election petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that due to ulterior motives in order to favour the respondent no.1, the respondent no.7 changed the location of the polling station nos. 62 & 63 at MES Sub Station, CVD, Delhi Cant. depriving a large no. of voters of their right to cast their vote as the polling stations were not located at a well known place and was away from the residences of the voters. It is further alleged that the respondent no.1 in connivance with the political leaders like Vijay Kumar Mlahotra, Prof. Jagdish Mukhi and Sh. Kanwar Singh Tanwar who were the sitting MPs and MLA, tried to influence the voters by bribing them and also by extending threats thereby materially affecting the results of the election. It is also alleged that the respondent no.1 joined hands with the respondent nos. 6 to 8 and adopted corrupt practices with their aid and assistance. In this regard it is specifically alleged that the respondent no.1 and her party colleagues had been giving cash amount, liquor, gifts etc. to the public and on the complaint of the workers of the petitioner, the police seized vehicle bearing no. DL 3CAA 1079 vide DD No.33A on -: 39 :- 13.5.2008 under Section 32/113 DP Act pursuant to which Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o V-87, Old Nangal, Delhi Cant. and Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Satbir Singh R/o V-15, Old Nangal, Delhi Cant. were arrested alongwith the no. of sarees and propaganda material i.e. hand bills, posters belonging to respondent no.1 which is a conclusive evidence to show that they were influencing the voters. It is further alleged that the respondent no. 6 was moving around in his uniform amongst the unit area openly canvassing in favour of the respondent no.1 on the date of polling. Further, a circular/ letter bearing no. F.RO/ DCB/ Election/2008 dated17.5.2008 was circulated at the instance of Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, Sh. Jagdish Mukhi and Sh. Kanwar Singh Tanwar and the respondent no.6 directed that certain proofs of identity not to be accepted which was done with the sole motive of depriving the voters of the Jhuggis and poor persons from casting their vote. The election petitioner has also alleged that the mood of the electors in favour of the petitioner had been gauged and it was for this reason that such a circular was issued without any prior notice or widely published and despite the fact that it -: 40 :- was mentioned that a copy of the circular was given to all the candidates, no such copy was ever supplied to the election petitioner and she came to know about the same in the middle of the elections when the polling was already over and a large number of voters had returned without casting their votes.
Thereafter, the said circular was subsequently withdrawn but not widely publicized and therefore, the polling officers returned hundred of voters for want of identification and thus the voters were improperly refused to be received, thereby materially affecting the result of the election. According to the election petitioner on 19.5.2008 at the time of counting of votes a large no. of votes casted in favour of the petitioner were deliberately rejected though they had been marked in favour of the petitioner under Rule 34(2). It is also pointed out that a large no. of votes had been declared invalid and majority of them had been accepted in favour of the petitioner thereby affecting the results of the elections. It is also alleged in the pleadings that the ballot papers were not in proper shape and form as required under the rules which resulted into bogus voting. According to the petitioner, the counter foils of -: 41 :- the ballot papers were not signed nor the thumb impression of the electors were taken with the sole motive of permitting bogus voting and it is because all the respondents join hands against the petitioner and did not follow the procedure laid down under the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 which resulted in her defeat.
The petitioner in order to discharge the onus upon her, has examined herself as PW1 and in her examination in chief by way of affidavit she has corroborated what she has earlier stated in the main election petition. Further, the husband of the petitioner Sh. Vimal Chaudhary has also been examined as PW2 who has corroborated the testimony of the election petitioner in toto. PW3 V.K. Sethi, the A.E. Delhi Cantonment Board has produced the instruments of voting and the record of the entire rejected ballot papers. The entire electoral record was directed to be produced in the court and duly examined wherein it was observed that a total no. of 23 instruments had been issued by the Returning Officer of which 16 had been used by the voters. The Swastic mark as present on all the used and unused instruments which was -: 42 :- intact. PW3 Sh. V.K. Sethi, A.E. Delhi Cantonment Board has deposed that as per rules three instruments were issued to each polling officer and in the present case there were 8 polling stations in ward no. 7 and 24 instruments were issued. He has explained that in certain cases the voters walk away with the instruments due to which reason one instrument which was used in the election is not available with them. The rejected ballot papers were also examined by this court and it was found that in polling station no. 60, a total no. of 65 votes which were casted in favour of Geeta had been rejected and 46 no. of votes which were casted in favour of Anupama Tripathi and one vote in favour of Lalita and 12 ballot papers had been rejected due to other reason (a total no. of 124 ballots were rejected). Further, in respect of polling station no. 61, it has been observed by this court that 37 votes which were casted in favour of Geeta had been rejected and 41 no. of votes casted in favour of Anupama Tripathi; one vote in favour of Kamlesh; 1 in favour of Manisha and 6 ballot papers had been rejected due to other reasons (a total of 86 ballots were rejected). Therefore, the examination of the -: 43 :- rejected votes show that it was not only the votes casted in favour of the election petitioner but also in favour of other contesting candidates which were similarly rejected and therefore, the contention of the election petitioner that she has been specifically targeted and majority of the votes which were casted in her favour had been rejected intentionally, is factually incorrect.
The election petitioner has also examined Vyas Chaudhary and Prabhmeet Singh who were her polling agents as PW4 and PW5. In rebuttal the respondent Anupama Tripathi has examined herself as her sole witness as DW1 and the Returning Officer Sh. S.M. Bhardwaj has examined himself as his sole witness as D7W1.
I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses which include the testimonies of the election petitioner herself, her husband and her election agents. Firstly an attempt has been made to challenge the validity of the present elections on the ground that a number of ballot papers which had been marked from the horizontal side of the -: 44 :- instrument provided by the Returning Officer had been rejected by the Returning Officer in the present ward whereas such type of ballots had been accepted in the ward no.5 showing the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the Returning Officer which is now under challenge before this court. As per the provisions of Rule 34 (2) of the Delhi Cantonment Electoral Rules framed under the Delhi Cantonment Act, the Returning Officer is required to provide to the polling officers many other things and instruments for stamping the distinguishing mark on the ballot papers. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to provide instruments for stamping, distinguishing mark of the ballot papers and the articles necessary for the electors. These articles have already been provided by the Returning Officer which were required to be provided to the electors. It is stated by the election petitioner that the instrument of stamping which were provided to the polling officers by the Returning Officer were of poor quality and on many of the instruments the Swastic mark was not present and it was for this reason that the voters have marked -: 45 :- the ballot papers from the horizontal side and therefore, under these circumstances, the said ballots should have been accepted and not rejected. This court had directed the production of the entire election record before it and had duly examined the said instruments of stamping and it had been observed that none of the instruments were either damages or not bearing the Swastic mark but it appears that the voters have chosen to put the stamp from the horizontal side and not from the site of Swastic mark. Rule 34 (2) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules are very clear and the ballot papers are required to be marked with the instrument of marking providing by the Returning Officer which instrument of marking is the one which bears the Swastic mark. The intention of the voters have to be gathered from the marking made by them with the instrument of marking containing the Swastic mark. Therefore, the Returning officer in the present case has rightly rejected the ballots not containing the Swastic mark. It would be a different issue whether the said marking has been made from the horizontal side or by any other -: 46 :- instrument. Once the instrument of marking bearing the Swastic mark has been provided, the intention of the voters cannot be gathered from any other marking. The allegation that the Returning Officer has adopted dual approach by accepting such ballot papers in Ward no.5, is an issue which is required to be dealt with while considering the challenge to the election in respect of ward no.5 where such ballots have been accepted. However, in so far as the present ward is concerned the said ballots have rightly been rejected by the Returning officer. Even otherwise, this court has duly examined the rejected ballots of the entire ward, record of which had been produced before it. Rule 49 of the Electoral Rules framed under the Cantonment Act do not provide for marking the ballot in a particular manner but read with Rule 34 it provides for a distinguishing mark on the ballot papers which has to be put by the instrument of marking and therefore, any ballot paper which does not bear the distinguishing mark (Swastic Mark) and were bearing any other mark than the Swastic mark, was rightly rejected by the -: 47 :- Returning Officer and his conduct in accepting the votes in ward no. 5 shall be open for consideration while dealing with the election petition pertaining to ward no.5.
Secondly it is evident from the cross-examination of the petitioner, her husband and both her polling agents that before any ballot was rejected, the Counting Officer has granted them reasonable opportunity to inspect the ballot paper only after which it was rejected. Rather the election petitioner in her cross-examination has admitted that after the conclusion of the counting, results of the election were declared and she and her husband had signed the same. She has also admitted not having complained to any authority at the time of counting nor had they requested for re-counting. PW4 and PW5 who are the election agents of the petitioner have also deposed about the no. of the rejected votes but in their cross-examination they have admitted that were not present at the time of counting and they did not know as to how many votes were rejected or wrongly rejected. -: 48 :-
Thirdly it is also alleged that the President of the Delhi Cantonment Board was visiting around the polling station and was openly canvassing for the respondent no.1. The election petitioner has in her cross-examination admitted that the respondent no.6 i.e. the President of the Delhi Cantonment Board was not canvassing for BJP. Even the husband of the petitioner who has been examined as PW2 admitted that he did not see the respondent no.6 canvassing for BJP in the elections. The other witnesses of the election petitioner i.e. PW4 and PW5 have also admitted that they had not seen the respondent no. 6 asking people to vote for the respondent no.1. They have admitted that they have deposed on the basis of what they have heard from the general public. The said witnesses have not been able to tell the names of the persons from whom they received the said information.
Fourthly the election petitioner has alleged that the circular dated 17.5.2008 had been issued at the instance of respondent no.1 providing that certain documents i.e. rickshaw license, dependent card and railway passes shall not -: 49 :- be considered as documents of identity which circular was subsequently withdrawn but not widely publicized. It is not disputed that the said circular had been issued and later on withdrawn but it was necessary for the election petitioner to have brought before this court the details of the persons who have been deprived from casting their votes on account of the aforesaid. It is not sufficient only to plead that rights of certain persons had been defeated on this account but the names of such persons who had been so prevented by issuance of this circular to cast their votes should have been provided and these persons should have been produced before the court to prove this allegation, which has not been done. Neither the names nor the particulars of the said persons who were so prevented from casting their votes on account of the said circular, have been provided. I, therefore, hold that the election petitioner has not been able to prove and substantiate the aforesaid ground. It is further evident from the cross- examination of the petitioner and her husband and her election agents that no objection had been raised by them at the time of election with the polling officer to the extent that -: 50 :- some persons had been wrongly denied the entry to the polling station or their right to cast votes. The cause to demand any documentary evidence of identity would arise only upon the challenge of identity of a voter and upon depositing a sum of Rs.100/- as provided under the rules. It has been denied by the witnesses of the election petitioner that such procedure was being followed but identity of any voter was never challenged in the elections. This being so, I hereby hold that the issuance of this circular dated 17.5.2008 does not affect the result of the elections in any manner.
Fifthly it is alleged that the location of the polling booth no. 62 and 63 had been changed vide order dated 6.5.2008 which is Ex.PW2/B2 causing inconvenience to the voters. In this regard, PW2 the husband of the election petitioner has admitted that the location of the polling booth no. 62 & 63 were changed vide order dated 6.5.2008 which is Ex.PW2/B2. He has also admitted that they had distributed the voters' slips giving the correct address of the polling booths to all the voters which slips were prepared before the -: 51 :- polls. According to him, he had made a complaint to the Returning Officer that polling booth no. 62 & 63 are in CVD lines and earlier both the polling booth were located in one polling station whereas during the process of election they had been scattered and on examining the said complaint, remedial action was taken by the SDM vide order Ex.PW2/D2. He has also testified that while he had made the said complaint in his capacity as the election agent of the petitioner, the petitioner had also accompanied him to the Returning Officer for making the complaint. This being so, it is evident that the election petitioner was aware of the said change and it was upon for her to have protested regarding the said change before the competent officers and now at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to raise these allegations.
Sixthly it is also alleged that the respondent no. 1 in connivance with Sh. Vijay Kumar Malhotra (Member of Parliament), Professor Jagdish Mukhi (the opposition leader) and Sh. Karan Singh Tanwar (MLA) had tried to influence the voters by giving bribes and threats. Both PW1 and PW2 have -: 52 :- no supported that they have stated in their examination in chief and in their cross-examination they have stated that they did not see any of these leader bribing any of the voters and extending threats.
Seventhly an objection has been raised by the election petitioner that no thumb impressions, signatures or evidence has been collected regarding the vote casted by a particular elector and no counter foils had been maintained there being a serious irregularity. I am not very convinced by the argument advanced since the petitioner has failed to place on record any rules requiring the maintenance of the counter foil. The signatures of the electors have been taken on the registers of the Polling Officers and the Rules do not require any printing or maintaining of the counter foil and the objection raised in this regard is devoid of merits.
Lastly there are allegations regarding the corrupt practices against the respondent no.1. It has been alleged that liquor had been distributed by the respondent no.1 and two vehicles were seized by the police. The election petitioner in -: 53 :- order to substantiate her allegations, placed on record the photographs of the vehicle which was seized which are Ex.PW1/4, PW1/5 & PW1/6. In her cross-examination the election petitioner has stated that these photographs had been taken by her husband and she is not personally aware of the same. Further, PW2 who is the husband of the petitioner, has in his cross-examination deposed that he is also aware if anything had been seized from the said vehicle and he was told that the vehicle contained sarees and liquor for distribution to voters. He has admitted that the photographs do not show any material contained in it for distribution. No witness from the ward in question has been examined to prove that any material had been distributed to them by the respondent no.1 in an attempt to induce the voters to vote for her.
Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the election petitioner has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations made by her in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the petition and also that the votes have been -: 54 :- improperly rejected and if accepted could have materially affected the result of the election. She is further unable to prove that there had been a non compliance of The Cantonment Act and Cantonment Electoral Rules or that the circular issued on 17.5.2008 was not properly conveyed to the election petitioner which affect the result of the elections.
Issues are decided in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the election petitioner.
Issue no.6 Whether the election of the respondent no.1 is liable to set aside under the electoral rules and the petitioner is liable to be declared duly elected in place of respondent no.1 as the member of the Cantonment Board from Ward No.7?
Onus of proving this issue was upon the election petitioner. In view of my findings with regard to the issues no. 2 to 5 which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity, I hereby hold that the election of the respondent no.1 as Member of the Ward No.7 is not liable to be set aside nor the petitioner is liable to be duly elected. Issue is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. -: 55 :- Relief:
In view of my findings with regard to the various issues, I hereby hold that the election petitioner has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations made by her in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the petition and also that the votes have been improperly rejected and if accepted could have materially affect the result of the election. She is further unable to prove that there has been non compliance of The Cantonment Act and Cantonment Electoral Rules or that the circular issued on 17.5.2008 was not properly conveyed to the election petitioner which affects the results of the elections.
The election petition is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The original record of the election, if any, is directed to be returned. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 6.3.2010 Addl. Sessions Judge (NW)-II,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
-: 56 :-
26.2.2010
File is taken up on the application filed on behalf of the election petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground that she wants to file written synopsis of arguments. Present: None.
I have considered the request made. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the election petitioner to file the written synopsis of arguments by 4.3.2010 with advance copy to the counsel for the respondent.
Case be re-listed for orders on 6.3.2010.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ(NW)-II: Rohini 26.2.2010 -: 57 :- Smt. Geeta Vs. Anupama Tripathi Suit No. 96/2008 6.3.2010 Present: None for the parties.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the election petition is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The original record of the election, if any, is directed to be returned. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ(NW)-II: Rohini 6.3.2010 -: 58 :-