LexR. NARAYANAN versus S. SEMMALAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
571 R. NARAYANAN v. • S. SEMMALAI AND ORS. September 6, 1979 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] D Representation of the People Act, 1951-Recount-When could be ordered "" by the Court. • " ~.- , The appellant and the respondent, among a few others, were candidates in the elections to the State Assembly in which the appellant was declared elected. The respondent, in his election petition in the High Court, alleged that the appel· !ant's election was void under s. !00(1 )(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that there were numerous-errors in the counting of votes as a result 6f which number of votes were wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted and prayed for qrdering of recounting because. the margin by which the appellant succeeded was extremely narrow, coming to about nine votes. He also prayed that he might be declared elected under s. 101 of the Act. The High Court ordered recount of votes and after recount held the respon- dent to be duly elected under s. 101 of the Act. Allowing the appeal HELD : This is not a case in ·which a recount should have been ordered by the High Court. [586C] 1. The relief of recounting. cannot be accepted merely on the possibility of thei"e being an error. The allegations in the election petition must not only be clearly made out but should also be proved by cogent evidence. The High Court has held that the respondent bas not eStablished any specific instance of erro- neous sorting and that the allegations made in the pleadings and the evidence were genera]. Even so it accepted the respondent's case on such insufficient and infirm evidence. [578F-G] 2. The narrow margin by which a candidate has been declared elected, though an important factor, would not by itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify an order of recount by the Court. [579EJ In the instant case the grounds taken by the respondent impugning the election E F were vague. No case for recount had been made out by him. [580B] G· 3. It is well settle~ that a court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where (1) the election petition contains an adequate state- ment of all the material facts on which the allegations of 'irregularity or of illegality in counting are founded, (2) on the basis' of evidence adduced su.ch allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there bas been a mistake in counting and (3) the court trying the petition is prima Ht facie satisfied that the. making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. . [585H] 57.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R. -}\ Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind & Ors., [1975] Supp. SCR 202; followed. Ram Stwak Jadav v. Hussain Kami! Kidwai & Ors., [1%4] 6 SCR 238; Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 7Z3; Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Kri•hna Behari & Ors., [!970] 1 SCR 852; Baltkv Singh v. Teia Singh Swa- tantar & Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 381; Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal Singh & Or3., [1976] 1 SCR 191; Be/iram Bhalaik v. Jai Beharila/ Khachi & Anr., [1975] 4 SCC 417; Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shtv Ram Verma, (C. A. No: 1185 of 1973 decided on 20-12-1974); referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978. ~ Appeal under Article 116-A of the R.P. Act, 1951 from the Judg- ment and Order dated 27-2-1978 of the Madras High Court in .C Election Petition No. 7 /77. AND Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1978. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order da.ted 15-2-78 of the Madras High Court in Recrintination Petition Un- numbered but with D. No. 12962/77. · A. K. Sen,· K. Parasaran, P. N. Ramalingam, R. Srinivasan and A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant. Y. S. Chitale, T. N. C. Srinivasa Vardacharya, K. Jayarairl and K. Ram Kumar, for Respond.ent 1 in CA 524/78. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978 has been filed by tho appellant R. Narayanan who was the respondent before the High Court and in short would be referred to as the appellant. Civil • Appeal No. 588 of 1978 has been filed by the appellant after obtain- ing special leave from this Court and is directed against that part of the order of the High Court which refused to entertain the recrimina- tion petition filed by the appellant. The election petitioner b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.