Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The appellant/DDCA, the main contesting defendant, filed its written statement contesting the claim of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the elections held on 21.12.2012 were not free and fair. It was also denied that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 had been prevented from casting the proxy votes. It was the stand of the DDCA that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 had not entered into the hall within the stipulated period of time and consequently, they were not be permitted to cast the proxy votes. It also denied the correctness of the CCTV footage. The plea taken was that the Election Officer, Sh. B.L. Garg (respondent No.3) was called upon to file his written statement, who had stated that there was a free and fair election. Similarly, it was stated that the Chief Election Officer, Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.C. Chopra was also called upon by the court to file his report. He had submitted that the elections were held as per schedule except that the time for casting the vote by the proxies was extended by half an hour keeping in view the exigencies of work. It was also stated by the Chief Election Officer that so far as the recording of CCTV footage is concerned, it was not synchronized with the actual time nor was any CCTV footage authorized to be recorded by the Returning Officer or the Chief Election Officer, therefore, no credence could be placed on the same. The DDCA had also relied upon the written statement filed by the Returning Officer as well as the report of the Chief Election Officer.

20. Mr. Aggarwal, the learned counsel next with regard to the submission of truncated challenge to the elections contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were the plaintiffs, were the dominus litus and, therefore, they had a free hand in couching their relief clause in a manner in which liked. It was contended that they had the full liberty to make any person as a party. Moreover, it was stated that the case of respondent Nos.1 & 2 was that though the respondent No.1 was not permitted to cast 99 proxy votes but non-casting of these 99 proxy votes had impacted only the election of six office bearers, who were made as respondents and, therefore, it was not necessary or incumbent on the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to have challenged the election of all the 16 posts which were held on 21.12.2012. Reliance in this regard was placed on case titled Lakshmi Ram vs. Hari Prasad; (2003) 1 SCC 197 and Kandasami Kandar vs. Subramania Goundar & Others; 5 ELR 156.

21. I have gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that under the garb to the respondents being dominus litus, the said respondents as plaintiffs could complain about the unfair and illegality in the entire polling held on 21.12.2012 and yet not challenge the entire process of election but only election of persons to the limited posts. In other words, once the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are complaining that there was gross illegality or irregularity in the entire process of holding elections by not permitting respondent Nos.1 & 2 to cast proxy votes or by not adhering to the time schedule fixed according to the election notice, the entire election process was vitiated but keeping in view the fact that the respondent No.1 had 99 proxy votes which if casted, that would have changed the election of only six persons. Such a proposition or in other words in Saroj Bala‟s case, truncated challenge to the election cannot be permitted to be done. No doubt in Saroj Bala‟s case, this was a loud though expressed by the learned judge of this court while dealing with the challenge to the election to a particular office but this view has found approval by the Supreme Court as SLP against the Division Bench's order was also dismissed. There seems to be strong logic and reasons to this view. If the entire election process is fraught with illegalities and irregularities then the election of all the persons who have got elected in such a polling have to be necessarily challenged and set aside and it will not be open, in my view, for the appellant to challenge only half of the election of some of the posts. If this is permitted to be done, it would lead to a very absurd result. I feel that this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the trial court. I have been informed that the very maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 was assailed on the ground of truncated challenge and though the trial court has taken note of this submission but it has failed to dwell on the same and decide the issue. I feel that this issue was going to the root of the matter itself, ought to have been considered by the trial court before deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. I do not agree with the proposition sought to be canvassed before this court that respondent Nos.1 & 2 being dominus litus were permitted to be given free not to challenge only a part of the election.

27. Similarly, the Chief Election Officer has categorically observed that as per polling schedule, personal votes were started at 10 am and continued upto 12 pm. Since there was a 15-20 minutes spill over or so after 12 pm on the date of polling, accordingly, the proxy votes commenced at 12 pm as scheduled but the persons who had come to cast votes as proxies, started receiving their ballots which were being issued by the staff after computing the proxies available with them. The calculation of proxies was taking time and accordingly, at 12:45 pm, it was realized that all those who had come to vote as proxies, may not get ballot paper by 1 pm because of the calculation of proxy votes, the staff was also consuming little time granted in consultation with the Returning Officer, the proxy votes were permitted to cast vote till 1.30 pm. It was also stated in the report of the Chief Election Officer that one or two voters entered into the voting area at about 1.40 pm and started insisting that they should also be allotted ballot paper but some persons started opposing them on the ground that they have come in the pollilng arena after 1.30 pm and, therefore, they could not vote. The Chief Election Officer had also observed in his report that he has not been able to watch CCTV footage or video but he confirmed the timings from his memory as the timings which were revealed by him in his report. He could also not certify with regard to the correctness of the CCTV footage.