Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In view of my aforesaid discussion, issues 4 and 5 are decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent 1.--

ISSUES 6 AND 7 :

19. Shri Anil Kumar Malik, IAS, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDO). Disrrict Sonepat was the Returning Officer. As Additional Deputy Commissioner he' was also the Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, District Sonepat. He is married to the daughter of Kishan Chand Mor of Village Baroda Mor. It is alleged that Ramesh Kumar respondent and his family have very close friendly ties for the last three generations with the family of Kishan Chand Mor father-in-law of the Returning Officer and that Ramesh Kumar treats Mrs. Malik as his sister and visits her on occasions like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaiya Duj. It is further alleged that on account of the close family relations the Returning Officer went out of his way to help respondent 1 at the time of counting of votes. He is said to have appointed his father-in-law's confidants from Hindu Senior Secondary School Sonepat and Hindu College Sonepat as members of the counting staff. He is further alleged to have appointed his own subordinates from the office of DRDO andZila Parishad Sonepat to assist him at the time of counting. Names of the persons so appointed have been mentioned in para 14 of the petition. The Returning Officer is said to have called on the day of counting i.e. 8-5-1996 the counting staff at 7.00 A.M. and the counting supervisors at 7.40 A.M. in the counting hall and instructed them to do their best to get respondent 1 elected. It is further alleged that the Returning Officer told the counting staff that the contest in the election was between the petitioner and respondent 1 and that in order to ensure the victory of Ramesh Kumar they should mix the votes of the petitioner in the bundles of Ramesh Kumar and if any complaint was made, he would not entertain the same. The counting supervisors are said to have assured the Returning Officer that they would do their best to have respondent 1 elected. This conversation between the Returning Officer and the counting staff is said to have been overheard by Jai Karan son of Garkha Ram PW 5 who was the counting agent of the petitioner and he is said to have reached the counting hall at 7.30 A.M. on the day of counting. According to the allegations in the petition the Returning Officer is said to have made it known at the very outset that any person making complaints time and again would be turned out of the counting hall and directed that counting agents of national parties would sit near the counting tables and those belonging to the State parties would sit in the back row and this, according to the petitioner, was done so that his counting agents could not supervise the counting properly as he belonged to a State party. It is further alleged that as per the directions of the Returning Officer the counting supervisors from the very beginning started mixing the votes stamped in favour of the petitioner in the bundles of respondent 1 and separated the smudged ballot papers duly stamped against the symbol of the petitioner and got them rejected from the Returning Officer on the ground that the ballot papers bore thumb marks by way of identification of the voters. The Returning Officer is also said to have rejected the ballot papers which were doubly stamped and half marked against the symbol of the petitioner and thereby wrongly counted the votes polled in his favour. The number of votes which, according to the petitioner, were wrongly rejected on each table and in each round of counting have been mentioned in para 17 of the petition. It has also been alleged that ballot papers having clear marks of identification which were polled in favour of respondent 1 were wrongly accepted. The number of such ballots has been given in para 17 of the petition, Shri Ram Phal Mor who was the election agent of the petitioner is said to have submitted a written application to the Returning Officer for recounting the votes but that, according to the petitioner, was neither diarised nor was the recounting allowed. It is alleged that the petitioner also moved a similar application but no recount was allowed. He then telephoned to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana and also Shri T.N. Seshan the then Chief Election Commissioner of India pointing out the various irregularities committed during the course of counting and requested that a recount be ordered. On these allegations the petitioner has made a prayer that the votes be ordered to be recounted and he is sanguine that on such a recount it will be found that he polled more votes than the returned candidate and, therefore, a further prayer has been made that he be declared elected to the State Assembly.