MAHENDRA PAL versus SHRI RAM DASS MALANGER AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 01-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
MAHENDRA PAL 
A 
v. 
SHRI RAM DASS MALANGER AND ORS. 
MARCH I, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Election Laws: 
Representation of People Act, I 9 5 I-Section I 00 (I) ( d) (iii)-Election--
Recount of votes-Appellant defeated by a margin of 3 votes-Demand for C 
recount alleging irregularities during counting-Held, since the appellant failed 
to produce evidence or examine witness alleging discrepancy in counting of 
votes, the demand for recounting was rightly rejected by the High Court. 
Appellant and respondent 1 were the contesting candidates in an D 
election. Respondent 1 was declared elected defeating the appellant by a 
margin of 3 votes. The appellant filed an election petition before High Court 
for declaring the election of the respondent void and declaring the appellant 
as elected on the ground of various irregularities committed during the course 
of counting of ballots. The High Court dismissed the election petition on the 
ground that the petition lacks in material facts and did not disclose a cause E 
of action warranting recount of ballots. In appeal, this Court remitted the 
matter back to the High Court for deciding the election petition afresh on 
merits holding that the election petition did contain an adequate statement 
of material facts. The High Court, after examining the witnesses and evidence, 
dismissed the election petition forming an opinion that n~ case for re-count F 
of the ballot papers was made out by the appellant. 
In appeal, the appellant contended that as per Form 20-A, the total 
number ofvotes found in the ballot boxes were 35, 310 whereas the statement 
# 
of round wise detailed result of counting disclosed that the total number of 
valid and rejected votes were 35, 318; and that as there was discrepancy of8 G 
votes, the recounting of ballot papers should be done since the vote margin is 
only 3 votes. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. After remand to the High Court, the appellant has not H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A examined any witness to establish that 8 ballot papers, which were found to 
be in excess were unauthorisedly added by s_omeone. From the evidence, it 
cannot be held that there was any irregularity or illegality in counting of votes. 
The appellant has not even stated in his deposition that 8 ballot papers were 
illegally inserted at the time of counting of votes. There is nothing to suggest 
B that there was reception of any invalid or void votes. No foundation or 
evidence is led by ~he appellal'lt that there was improper reception, refusal or 
rejection of any vote nor there is any submission that any vote which was 
void was taken into consideration in favour of the respondent [174-C-GJ 
1.2. As the appellant had not led any evidence or laid foundation stating 
C that there was improper reception of vote in favour of the respondent or 
improper rejection of any vote which were in his fa\·our, and that he has not 
raised any objection at the time of counting of votes on the basis of so-called 
excess of 8 ballot papers, the High Court rightly refused to the recounting of 
votes. The discrepancy of 8 ballot papers could be attributed to accidental 
slip or clerical or arithmetical mistakes which might have been committed at 
D the time of preparation of the statements. [176-F) 
R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai and Ors., r1980J.2 SCC 537; D.P. Sharma · 
v. Commissioner and Returning Officer and Ors., [1984) Supp. SCC 157; P.K.K. 
Shamsudeen v. K.A.M Mappillai Mohindeen and Ors., AlR (1989) SC 640; 
Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and Ors., (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 82; 
E 
Vadivelu v. Szmdaram and Ors., (200018 sec 355 and V.S. Achuthanandan v. 
P.J Francis and Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 81, relied on. 
Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Ma/anger and Ors .. [2000) 1 Sec 261, 
referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
C. iii Appeal No. 3993 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.2001 of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court in E.P. No. l of 1998. 
, 
G 
E.C. Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Alok Agarwal, 
Ashwini Kumar and Vivek Yadav for the Appellant. 
Satya Pal Jain, and Randhir Singh Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
SHAH, J. Thie appeal under Section 1,16-A of the Representation of 
1 
MAHENDRA PAL v. RAM DASS MALANGER [SHAH, J.J 
171 
the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is filed against the A 
final judgment and order dated 4.5.2001 passed by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.