Bibi Shahin Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 April, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Bibi Shahin Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 April, 2019

It has already been discussed earlier that Petitioner has been unsuccessful in proving that she got 1005 votes and O.P. 3rd set secured 991 votes. Upon sincere perusal of the election petition this tribunal find that Petitioner has only used the word Corrupt Practice and has not stated in clear terms that what was the specific act which according to her was the corrupt act of the O.P. 1st & 3rd set "Corrupt Practice" has been defined specifically in Section 141 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and in my view Petitioner has stated none of the acts defined in different clauses of Section 141 which may be categorized under the category of Corrupt Practice.

At this stage of the discussion it has become crystal clear that Petitioner has only used the term corrupt practice in her pleading and has related it to the recounting and collusion of said O.Ps. as the cause of illegal declaration of win of O.P. 3 rd set by a margin of one vote. Now, although there is no specific allegation in the pleading of the Petitioner but Ld. Counsel during final argument of the present case has drawn attention of this tribunal towards Section 139(d)(iv) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and has also drawn attention towards Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 and has stated that Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 15/33 non passing of Order in writing for recounting by Returning Officer makes this case fit for declaring election as void. It is again to be mentioned here that there is nothing specific in the pleading of the Petitioner regarding the said allegation but it is now mandatory for this tribunal to examine the aforesaid allegation on the basis of evidence and related laws and Rules. Further, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner also made similar other objections during his final argument. Thus, being an Election Tribunal it is necessary to discuss the objections of the Petitioner to arrive at any final conclusion.

Objection No.1:- Application for recounting was given firstly from the side of O.P. 3rd set and recounting was done and result was illegally declared and an application was thereafter taken forcibly from the election agent of Petitioner by the officers present there.

In the said regard I find two applications which has been marked Exhibit-A-1 and Exhibit-A- 1/1 (both adduced from the side of the O.P. 1st set). Both applications are original. The copy of the said applications obtained under RTI was also marked as Exhibit from the side of the Petitioner as Exhibit 2 & 2/A. Now upon perusal of the said documents I find that Exhibit A-1 is an application for recounting of votes by Syed Helal Ashraf and the subject is regarding recounting of all wards and further upon perusal I find that at the last of the application it has been endorsed that "Ab koi aapati nahi hogi jobhi nirnay ho mujhe manya hoga" and I also find some digits written in the last line of the application as Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 16/33 "271,272,273,274,275,264,265 (digit 6 appears to be written as overwriting over digit 7). Further, upon perusal of Ex. A-1/1 I find that it is an application by applicant Kishori Prasad Keshri containing subject as Application for Recounting in which it has been stated that he is the election agent of Contestant Poonam Devi and that there has been definite error during counting and that he is not satisfied with the counting and recounting is required for booth number 261,262,263,264,265 and 274. Again in the margin of the said Exhibit it has been endorsed "Uprokt Varnit Matdan Kendro me se 261,262,265 ko Poonam Devi evam Bibi Shahin Khatoon ke paksha me pade mat patra evam awaidh mat patra ki punah gadna ki jaye" and further there is endorsement in blue ink which is "Booth Sankhya 270 ki poonah ginati ki jaye, iske paschat koi bhi booth ki aawashyakta nahi hai. Jo bhi Parinam Nirvachi Pada, Dwara jari hoga Mujhe manya hoga"

Here the documentary evidence suggests that application were filed from both sides for recounting and that has not been denied by the concerned parties but the dispute which has been raised by the Petitioner during argument that the said application was taken from him by the concerned officials present there. For the ascertainment of truth this tribunal would have to also analyse the oral evidence of the crucial witnesses adduced from all concerned parties. At this stage of discussion it is again crystal clear that Exhibit-A-1 & Exhibit A-1/1 clearly negates the allegation of the Petitioner as mentioned in para no. 11 of the Petition that "Bina Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 17/33 kisi abhyarthi ke dwara awedan poonah ginati ka diya".

Further, upon perusal of the oral evidence of the PW-1 Syed Helal Ashraf and PW-7 Biwi Shahin Khatoon I find there is nothing on record to prove that PW-1 was forced to write any application for recounting rather in Para no. 9 of his Examination-in- chief PW-1 stated that an application was taken from Kishori Prasad Keshari for recounting and the competent officer present there passed an order and in order to complete the formality an application was taken from him. Now, the said stand of PW-1 is a complete different stand taken by PW-1 which is contradictory to para-11 of the Election Petition. Further, Para no.9 of his evidence if believed to be true points out to a situation that PW-1 was having complete knowledge of the affairs taking place there and there is no averment in pleading of the Petitioner in relation to that as the pleading of the Petitioner states that every thing was done in the absence of the Petitioner and her agents.

Further, DW2 Chanda Kumari appeared before this Court for evidence from the side of O.P. No.1 to 5. DW2 was the Nirvachi Padadhikari of the election of Gram Panchyat- Simri who stated in para no.3 of her evidence that husband of the Petitioner Bibi Shahin Khatoon namely Syed Helal Ashraf who was her election agent filed an application for recounting on some booths which was considered and after considering the said application recounting was done and Poonam Devi got maximum votes in the recounting too and hence she was declared winner in Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 18/33 the election and in contradicting the said averment of DW2 regarding filing of application by Syed Helal Ashraf no question was asked which is evident from reading cross-examination by Petitioner and hence the said fact remained intact and uncontroverted.

The said discussion proves that the said allegation/objection of Petitioner is completely concocted and without any merit and not based on any sound foundation.

Objection No.2 :- No order passed by Returning Officer on any application for recounting which is in contravention of Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006.

Petitioner has not raised the aforesaid contention in her pleading but Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has raised the said objection during final argument.

In regard to the said objection this tribunal perused Ex. A-1 & A-1/1. Upon perusal of the available oral and documentary evidence one thing is clear that recounting took place and both parties agree to the said fact and the dispute is only due to the fact that each side allege that application for recounting was given firstly by respective opposite side. The said issue is settled by the deposition of DW2 Chanda Kumari who was the returning officer who stated in para no.3 and para no.55 of cross-examination that recounting was done at the application of both sides. Now, this tribunal has to see whether any order was passed for recounting and if not does it vitiate the whole proceeding and is sufficient to declare election as void u/s 139(1)(d)(iv) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 19/33 2006 read with Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006. Upon perusal of the Ex. A-1 and A-1/1 I find there is no order passed on it relating to recounting of votes and further there is also no any separate order for recounting by Returning Officer available on record. This tribunal at this juncture would like to highlight Section 139(1)(d)(iv) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 79 as mentioned in Bihar Panchayat Election Rules which is as under :-

Section 139 :- Grounds for declaring election to be void-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion-

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected-

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made there under, the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.

Rule 79 :- Recounting of Votes :- The candidate or in his/her Bibi Shahin Khatoon Vs. Poonam Devi & Ors. absence his/her election agent or counting agent may make a written appreciation to the Returning Officer or the Officer authorised by him/her for recounting of votes stating therein the grounds for the same.

(2) The Returning Officer or the officer authorised by him/her may, fully or partially, accept or reject the application stating the reason for the same. (3) If the Returning Officer or the Officer authorised by him/her accepts fully or partially the application under sub-rule (2), he/she shall get the Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 20/33 ballot papers recounted and amend the result of the counting in the form prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 76 and declare the result.

(4) After that, any application for further recounting shall not be entertained.

Thus, considering the said rule and the Exhibit- A-1 & A-1/1 I find that half part of the aforesaid rule was duly complied in the way that two application for recounting was filed on behalf of two contestants in writing but there is no order in writing by the Returning Officer on it. It is beyond doubt that recounting was done as admitted in evidence of all parties including DW2 Returning Officer which has already been discussed.

Considering the mandate of Rule 79 this tribunal is of opinion that Rule 79 is mandatory in nature but merely non-compliance by Returning Officer of not writing order for recounting is not patent illegality as it has to be seen whether the said non-compliance has in fact materially affected the result of the election and thus it cannot simply be a reason for declaring election as void and until and unless it is proved that it has materially affected the election and the non-writing of order may simply not futile the whole election process. In the present case in hand there was grievance by both sides regarding counting for which they filed applications for recounting marked as Exhibit- A-1 and A-1/1 and both sides prayed for recounting which was accepted by the Returning Officer and after recounting result was declared and thus it shows that non writing of order by Returning Officer does not materially affect Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 21/33 the result so far as Returned Candidate is concerned. Petitioner in her pleading has no where stated that how the non writing of order for recounting affected the election so far as Returned Candidate is concerned. Further, upon perusal of the evidence of the DW 2 (on behalf of O.P. no.1 to 5) Returning Officer I find that she had also offered explanation in her evidence regarding non writing of any order on the application for the recounting.

In para no. 39 of her Cross-examination she had stated that order for recounting may be done when some objections come and when the margin of difference is less than 9 votes it may also be done and it has also been mentioned in para no. 14 of Cross- Examination. Ld. GP for State as well as Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 7 had raised the said fact in his final argument that when the margin of win and defeat is less than 9 votes then recounting may be done suo moto by Returning Officer. Ld. GP for State and Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 7 had explained to this Court that Election Commission in order to ensure fairness in the process of election gives such direction to the District Election Officer from time to time. It is important to mention here that the copy of the said direction was placed before this tribunal for perusal and to take judicial notice which is Letter No.

-Pa.Ni.30-40/2016-4172. Again it has been filed by Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 7 with written argument.

Regarding such direction by Election Commission this tribunal can only observe that it is well settled law that where the enacted laws are silent or make insufficient provision to deal with a Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 22/33 given situation in the conduct of elections, the Election Commission has the residuary powers under the Constitution to act in an appropriate manner. The same hold good for the State Commissions as well since a comparisons of Article 324 and Article 243 K of the Constitution of India would show that the State Election Commission has same powers with regard to Panchayat/Urban Local Bodies Elections as Election Commission of India has regarding to Parliament and State Assemblies.

Thus, Election Commission has constitutional power to issue direction in order to conduct a free and fair election which the District Election Officer has to mandatorily comply.

This tribunal is also aware of the directions given in the year 2016 of the Election Commission as the said directions are available in public domain at the official website of State Election Commission, Bihar where this tribunal found such direction contained in the Instructions and Letters link in said official website as the Patra Sankhya - Pa.Ni. 30- 40/2016-4172 which is same as filed by Ld. Counsel for O.P. No.7. This Tribunal using its power of Judicial Notice Provided u/s 57 of Indian Evidence Act is mentioning here the direction of the State Election Commission issued on dated 12th of May, 2016 in relation to Panchayat Election 2016 to all the District Election Officers which is in public domain on the official website of State Election Commission, Bihar whose copy has been filed by O.P. No. 7 to take judicial notice and in the same there is express Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 23/33 direction in para no. 2 of the letter that if the margin of the votes in relation to a particular post is less than 9 votes and if an application for recounting comes then Recounting has to be done mandatorily and if the margin is more than 9 votes then application must be decided on merit.

In the present case in hand Returning Officer has stated in para 3 of her evidence that after recounting too O.P. No. 7 Poonam Devi received maximum votes which implies that Poonam Devi received maximum votes before the recounting too and in order to contradict the said fact no question was asked from DW2 and further no question was asked regarding the position of figure before recounting in cross-examination.

This, in the wake of the aforesaid discussion this Tribunal is of opinion that non writing of order of recounting in the present case by Returning Officer does not come under purview of any illegality and has not materially affected the result of the election. Objection No.3:- Overwriting and Cutting on Prapatra 20 bhag 1 of various booths which is in contravention of direction of Election Commission and further no initial made by Returning Officer.

Ld. Counsel for Petitioner also raised objection regarding cutting and overwriting in Prapatra 20 bhag (1) and also that there is no initial of Returning Officer where number of votes has been added and subtracted by sign + and -. In order to support the said objection Ld. Counsel for Petitioner had filed "Matadan Sambandhi Anudesh Pustika 2006" and drawn attention of this tribunal towards Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 24/33 Direction no. 18 of Chapter 11 for taking Judicial Notice which states about the procedure that no. of votes written earlier if found different during assessment (Samiksha) then it must be either added by using plus (+) sign or subtracted by (-) minus sign. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner did not file latest Anudesh Pustika of Year 2016 but a copy of the same has been filed by Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 7 which is not complete. This tribunal went through the Exhibit- 3 to 3/V and perused Prapatra 20 bhag (1) of all booths of Mukhiya post and found that save and except one or two booths the number of votes have either been added by using + sign or subtracted by using minus - sign and where the figures have been corrected by cutting then in such booths the change has been done in the votes of other contestant except Petitioner and O.P. 7.

Therefore, to raise such objection in my considered opinion is without any merit. Further, I do not find substance in the objection of the Petitioner that initial of Returning Officer was not present where + and - has been done in Prapatra 20 bhag (1) which as per Petitioner ought to have compulsorily done by her but I do not find that there is anything in direction no. 18 which mandates returning Officer to make initial wherever any change by + and - has been made. Thus, the said objection is without any merit. Objection No. IV :- Figure of total votes as mentioned in Prapatra 17 for Booth No. 264 is different from total votes mentioned in Praptra 20 bhag (1) for booth no. 264 which is illegal. Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 25/33 Again this Tribunal wants to make it clear that all the said objections have been raised at the time of final argument and there is nothing regarding all discussed objections in the pleading of the Petitioner and is being discussed only to dispel iota of doubt in the election process. Upon perusal of Prapatra 17 for booth no. 264 for each post which has been marked as Ex. 4 to 4/d I find that total 272 votes were cast for each post in Panchayat Election and in Prapatra 20 bhag 1 for Mukhiya post which is Exhibit 3/D shows the total votes polled as 303 and for other post which are Ex. 3,3/R 3/U shows the total no. of votes cast as 293 and this difference in number as per the Petitioner is an indication of manipulation done by the O.P. 1st and 3rd Set.

Ld. Counsel for Petitioner while arguing has referred to one 10% direction by Election Commission according to which when there is variation of more than 10% votes in total no. of votes in Prapatra 17 and Prapatra 20 bhag(1) on any particular booth then no result could be declared and the matter should be referred to Election Commission. Ld. Counsel for O.P. No.7 also had filed direction issued by Election Commission regarding the said rule which is contained in Letter No. Pa.Ni. 30- 40/2016-4148.

Again in order to arrive at decision that whether any patent illegality has been done by O.P. 1 st set in counting and recounting of votes this Tribunal went through official website of Election Commission and found the same letter as filed by Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 7 in the Instructions and Letters link in Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 26/33 said official website as the Patra Sankhya - Pa.Ni. 30-4-/2016-4148 dated 11.05.2016 where the 10% direction has been explained. It has been directed in the said letter which is also on record filed by O.P. No. 7 which states that ideally number of votes when the ballot box for a booth is opened should match with the entry of Prapatra 17 column 5 figure. In para 2 of the said letter it has been directed that Commission has taken decision after consideration that if the difference between maximum and minimum votes of different posts are more than 10% of figure mentioned in Prapatra 17 column 5 then matter should be referred to Commission and no counting shall be done.

This Tribunal thereafter perused Praptra 20 bhag (1) of the different posts which has been adduced from the side of the Petitioner which are Ex.3 which is Prapatra 20 bhag(1) of booth no. 264 for post of Sadasya, Ex.3/D which is Praptra 20 bhag(1) of Mukhiya post for said booth, Ex. 3/R which is again Praptra 20 bhag (1) of booth no. 264 for post of Sarpanch, Ex.3/S, which is Parpatra 20 bhag (1) of booth no. 264 for post of Zila Parishad Sadasya, Ex. 3/V which is Prapatra 20 bhag (1) of booth no. 264 for post of Panchayat Samiti Sadasya. After perusal I find that save and except for the post of Mukhiya of booth no. 264 which shows 303 total votes all other post prapatra 20 bhag (1) figure is 293. There is a difference of 10 votes from other posts in Prapatra 20 bhag (1) of Mukhiya and it is less than 10 % of total votes mentioned in Prapatra 17 column 5 (Ex.4/B) which is 272 votes and 10% of 272 comes to Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 27/33 be 27.2 and thus difference of 10 vote is less than 27.2 and thus if counting was allowed to be done by Returning Officer then it was no illegality.

Thus, this tribunal microscopically examined objections of the Petitioner which were not specifically pleaded in the Election Petition but in order to ensure that whether any illegality in counting and recounting has been done by O.P. 1 st Set which may come under the Corrupt Practice this tribunal also discussed the objections of the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner raised during final argument only and this tribunal find that Petitioner has been unsuccessful in proving any kind of Corrupt Act by O.P. 1 st and 3rd Set. It is important to mention here that this Tribunal has also gone through oral evidence of all witnesses but the only important witnesses have been discussed as other witnesses has only been adduced for the sake of only adducing witness and has no merit to be discussed about.

This, in the wake of aforesaid discussion this Tribunal arrive at conclusion that the Petitioner has not been successful in proving both Issue No. v and vi.

Thus, Issue no. v and vi is decided negatively against the Petitioner."

17. As issue nos. (iv) (v) and (vi) were decided against the petitioner, issue nos. (vii) and (viii) were also decided against her.

18. As the respondents did not adduce any evidence to prove that the application filed by the petitioner was legally not Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 28/33 maintainable or that she had no cause of action to file the petition or that the election petition was time barred, issue nos. (i) (ii) and

(iii) were decided in favour of the petitioner.

19. Having decided the crucial issues against the petitioner, the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 dismissed the election petition on contest.

20. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Election Petition No.21/2016, Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led on behalf of the parties and has wrongly dismissed the election petition. He submitted that the reasons assigned for arriving at the conclusion by the Tribunal are erroneous. It was mandatory for the returning officer to assign reason for recounting in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (for short 'Election Rules, 2006') the Tribunal noticed that there was no order passed on the application for recounting of votes and there was no separate order for recounting by returning officer available on record, it erroneously decided the issue nos. (v) and (vi) against the petitioner. He argued that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the mandate of Rule 79 of the Election Rules, 2006 was mandatory in nature and the same was not complied with, it Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 29/33 ought to have decided issue nos. (v) and (vi) in favour of the petitioner.

21. Per contra, Mr. Shri Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is completely within the statutory sanction.

He submitted that since the Tribunal dismissed the election petition after due consideration of the pleadings, exhibits and the oral testimonies adduced on behalf of the parties, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The respondent no.7 was declared as returned candidate by a margin of one vote because the petitioner had received 993 valid votes whereas the respondent no.7 secured 994 valid votes. The allegation of corrupt practice is without any foundational fact and factual correctness. The election petition had been filed with object of having roving and fishing enquiry. The provision of Rule 79 of the Election Rules, 2006 is neither mandatory nor filing of an application before the returning officer is a condition precedent for maintaining election petition.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record, I find that the Tribunal has considered the case of the petitioner in great detail. The evidences led on behalf of the parties have been scrutinized properly. Though, the specific case of the petitioner was that she got 1005 votes in Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 30/33 counting in her pleading, no evidence in support of the said pleading was tendered before the Tribunal. On the contrary, she has admitted in her evidence that she was not present at the place of counting and the information that she had got 1005 valid votes was received by her at 5 p.m.. She admitted that she is a hearsay witness in this regard. Under such circumstance, the Tribunal has rightly held that such a wild assertion cannot be believed.

23. I further find that the petitioner has pleaded that she had got 14 valid votes more than the valid votes cast in favour of respondent no.7. Thereafter, all the agents were asked to leave from the hall and recounting was done without any application having been given by any contestant. However, before the Tribunal the respondent no. 5 filed two applications, which were marked as exhibits A-1 and A-1/1. Exhibit A-1 is an application for recounting of votes by the petitioner's husband, Syed Helal Ashraf, who was also her election agent. He had requested for recounting of all votes and had endorsed in his application that after recounting, he will have no objection. Similarly, exhibit A-1/1 is an application for recounting made by an election agent of respondent no.7.

24. This apart, DW-2, the returning officer of the election of Gram Panchayat-Simri, has also stated in her evidence Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 31/33 that recounting was done on the basis of applications filed on behalf of both the parties and even after recounting also, respondent no.7 got maximum votes. Apparently, the contention of the petitioner that recounting was done without any application of any contestant was absolutely erroneous. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding against the petitioner.

25. As far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that under sub-rule(2) of Rule 79 of the Election Rules, 2006, the returning officer was statutorily enjoined with a duty to assign sufficient reasons for recounting is concerned, suffice it to say that the petitioner has not denied the fact that an application was filed on her behalf (exhibit A-1) for recounting of votes. The returning officer simply entertained her application as also another application filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 (exhibit A-1/1) and permitted recounting of votes. Once the petitioner had herself prayed for recounting and the returning officer allowed her prayer, she cannot raise any grievance that sufficient reason was not assigned by the returning officer for recount of votes, as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 79 of the Election Rules, 2006. By not writing the reasons for recount of votes, in the given background of facts neither the purpose nor the object of the above Rule 79 was frustrated.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 32/33

26. The petitioner has claimed in the election petition that she had got 1005 valid votes whereas respondent no. 7 had got 993 valid votes in the initial counting whereafter all the polling agents were asked to leave the counting hall. Thereafter, without any application from any contestant the returning officer recounted the votes and declared the respondent no. 7 as returned candidate.

However, the evidences led on her behalf completely belies her claim. As seen above, she herself admitted that an application for recounting was filed on her behalf. She admitted that she had heard through someone that she had got 1005 votes. She also admitted that at the place of counting she was not present, she also failed to lead evidence that the respondent no. 7 had got lesser number of valid votes than her. There was also no material to corroborate the allegation that any corrupt practice was adhered to in the process of counting.

27. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to prove the facts alleged in the election petition by leading cogent evidence before the Tribunal. In absence of any evidence in support of the facts alleged, no finding could have been recorded in favour of the petitioner.

28. The Tribunal has rightly analysed the evidences adduced by the parties.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1420 of 2018 dt.03-04-2019 33/33

29. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned, which materially affected the result of the election. Taking all the aspects into consideration, I am of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the election petition.

30. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          10.04.2019
Transmission Date       NA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court