Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) Whether the difference of votes between Report No.22 and Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human error, can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper KL,J slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency?

v) Whether the election of the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 can be declared to be void? If so, whether the petitioner can be declared to have been duly elected from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 07.12.2018?

16. Issue Nos.(ii) & (iv): Whether the difference of 136 votes between Report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and the Report furnished on 20.12.2018 would materially affect the result of the election of respondent No.1?, and Whether the difference of votes between Report No.22 and Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human error, can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency?

KL,J

i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that there is difference of 136 votes between report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and report furnished on 20.12.2018 and the same will materially affect the election of respondent No.1. In fact, the difference of votes is 132, but not 136. It is a human error, it can be sufficient to order recount of printer paper slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to the subject constituency.

ii) In the counter filed by respondent No.1, it is specifically contended that the allegation made by the election petitioner with regard to difference of votes etc., is false and baseless. The election petitioner is pointing out the difference in report No.22 dated 08.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 and the final result in Form - 20. But he suppressed the difference among them as the difference will not affect the result of respondent No.1. The difference of votes between report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 is only 132. The said fact would reveal from the tabular form of paragraph No.14 of the election petition, which was extracted in paragraph No.4 (xiii) above.

n) In his counter, respondent No.1 contended that non-tallying of information is a human error/mistake, thus, he has introduced two theories i.e., (i) there are two (02) reports; one preliminary report and final report; (ii) based on periodical report through cell phone, an hourly report was prepared and subsequently a revised report was sent. Reliance was placed on Ex.B6;

o) CCTV Footage was not furnished in spite of directions;

p) Records were not properly maintained as mandated under the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961 which led to incorrect preparation of report No.22 which materially affected the result of the election. Reliance was placed on Ex.C1 - report of the Election Commissioner of India;