LexFULENA SINGH versus VIJAY KUMAR SINHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 748
A
FULENA SINGH
.r
' ·.
v.
VIJAY KUMAR SINHA & ORS.
......
~
(Civil Appeal No. 719 of 2009)
B
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.]
Cqnduct of Election Rules, 1961 -
r. 93(1)(dd) -
c Application during pendency of election petition - For
inspection of registers of voters in Form 17 A - For
substantiating the allegations made in the election petition -
Allowed by trial court - On appeal, held: Inspection of election
papers cannot be permitted for the purpose of making a
D roving inquiry in order to fish out materials and to derive
.....
support for one's own case - Inspection allowed without
assigning any reasons - Hence application remitted to trial
court for consideration alongwith the main petition.
E
Respondent filed election petition against the
appellant (returned candidate) alleging that double voting
was done by the relatives and supporters of the appellant.
In order to substantiate his allegations, respondent filed
an application under r. 93(1)(dd) of Conduct of Election
,;..
F
Rules, 1961 seeking inspection of the packets containing
registers of voters in Form 17 A. Trial Court allowed the
application. Hence, the present appeal.
.ii
_ Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. Rule 93 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,
mandates that election papers mentioned in the said Rule
shall not be opened and their contents shall not be
inspected by, or produced before, any person or
authority except under the orders of a competent court.
H
748
FULENA SINGH v. VIJAY KUMAR SINHA & ORS.
749
('
_,._
Inspection of election papers mentioned in detail in Rule
A
93 (a) to (e) is not a matter of course. Inspection of those
papers cannot be ordered and parties cannot be
permitted to inspect the same for the purposes of making
a roving enquiry in order to fish out the materials and to
derive support for one's own case. A clear case is
B
required to be made out for ordering the production and
-~-
inspection of election papers by the parties. [Para 10]
[753-E-G-H; 754-A-C]
2. It is true that the election petitioner adduced c
evidence on his behalf by examining seven witnesses.
The trial judge observed that all the witnesses "have
supported the allegation of double voting at more than
one booth by relations and supporters of respondent no.
1. Some of the witnesses have specifically given the
D
·~
names of such voters whose names appear in voter's list
at more than one place." That is all the discussion about
the evidence and material available on record. Trial judge
did not assign any reason whatsoever in support of his
conclusion permitting the parties to inspect the registers
of voters in Form 17A and allowed the application as a
E
matter of course. Such laconic and unreasoned order
which may have a serious bearing on the questions that
arise for consideration in the main election petition which
~
is still awaiting trial and disposal, cannot be sustained .
. [Para 11] [753-H; 754-A-C]
F
3. The grant or refusal of the prayer in the election
petition to a large extent depends upon the decision as
to whether parties have to be permitted to inspect the
registers in Form -17A. It would be appropriate to decide
G
the main election petition in order to finally resolve the
lis between the parties. Hence, the application filed by the
first respondent/election petitioner is remitted to trial court
for the consideration of the trial court along with the
election petition. [Paras 12 and 13] [754-F-G-H]
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 1 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 719
_..-
of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.09.08 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna (Election Tribunal) in Election
B Petition No. 1/2006.
Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, Ravi Kishore, Amrita Narayana,
M. Sarada for the Appellants.
Ravi Shankar Prasad, Abhay Prakash, Himanshu Shekhar
C for the Respondents.
The Judgment for the Court was delivered by
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order
dated 15.9.2008 passed in Election Petition No.1 of 2006 by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Election Tribunal)
wherein the High Court allowed the application filed by the
respondent under Rule 93 (1) (dd) of the Conduct of Election
E Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The High
Court vide the impugned order permiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.