TANAJI RAMCHANDRA NIMHAN versus SWATI VINAYAK NIMHAN AND ORS

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TANAJI RAMCHANDRA NIMHAN 
v. 
SWAT! vn ... AYAK NIMHAN AND ORS 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRMANYAN, JJ.) 
Election laws: 
Election dispute-Recounting-Sought on grounds (a) counting staff 
C failed to show ballot papers to candidate or their agent before bundling 
them (b) improper identification of invalid votes (c) announcement of prize 
for returning officer who finished counting and announced the results first 
resulted in hasty counting-Small Cause Court and High Court directing 
recounting--On appeal, held: Nothing specific was established either 
D regarding irregularity in process that was undertaken or segregation of 
votes secured by candidates-The announcement of prize was bona fide and, 
apart from some hurry in counting process, was not shown to have resulted 
in any step in prescribed counting process being given up-Clear pleading 
and evidence in support of prayer for recounting of votes was lacking-
Sections 16 and 403 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 
E 1949. 
In an election to a Municipal Corporation, appellant-contestant defeated 
respondent no. I. Aggrieved by the results, the latter filed an election petition 
1 
under Section 16 read with Section 403 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal 
,1 
Corporations Act, 1949, in the Court of Small Causes. She alleged that result 
I 
F of the election was materially affected by (i) failure of the counting staff to 
show the ballot papers to her counting agents due to fact that scrutiny of 
symbol marks on them and their stacking into bundles of 25 was done 
simultaneously, and since only one counting agent was present at one table, 
it was not possible for them to scrutinize these procedures; (ii) improper 
G identification of the invalid votes; (iii) counting of votes was hasty due to 
announcement of a prize by the Municipality Commissioner for the Returning 
Officer who finished the counting and announced the result first. It was further 
averred by her that she raised several objections and ultimately filed a written 
.,r 
complaint with a specific request for recounting of the invalid votes, but no 
order was passed thereon. It was prayed that as the whole process of counting 
H 
948 
TANAJIRAMCHANDRANIMHANv.SWATIVINAYAKNIMHAN 
949 
was not proper, she was entitled to a declaration that victory of appellant was A 
void, his election be set aside and a fresh scrutiny and recounting of votes. be 
directed. Appellant-contestant sought dismissal of election petition on the 
ground that every opportunity was given to the candidates and their counting 
agents to watch the counting process and scrutnise the ballot papers while 
the counting was going on. 
Small Causes Court ordered recounting ofvotes and deferred its final 
judgment till receipt of report regarding same. Writ petition filed by appellant 
challenging that order was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal by appellant-contestant, the Municipal Corporation and the Returning 
Officer. 
Appellant-contestant contended that right to challenge an election was 
B 
c 
a statutory right and relief of recounting could not be granted in absence of 
pleading and proof of specific facts. Announcement of a prize for the returning 
officer who announced the result first along with the statements of the 
respondent no. I and her witnesses that the counting process was hurried, D 
could not by themselves justify the order for recounting. In this regard, 
Municipal Corporation and Returning Officer contended that the award was 
announced with the good intention of expeditious completion of the counting 
process, and there was no absence of bonajides. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1. On the whole, the election petitioner has not supplied adequate 
material in support of her prayer for an order of recount and there is no 
sufficient reason for ordering a recount In that view, the orders of the Small 
Causes Court and that of the High Court have to be set aside. [958-E] 
Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malangar and Ors., [2002) 3 SCC 457, 
Chandrika Prasadv. State of Bihar & Ors., M Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy 
and Ors., [2002] 6 SCC 341, relied on. 
E 
F 
2. Except generally stating that the counting process was hurried, while G 
one person was engaged in stacking 25 ballot papers as secured by each 
candidate, the others were segregating the votes secured by each candidate 
and it was difficult for the one agent present at the table to keep an eye on 
ev

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