1. This Election Petition has been filed inter-alia seeking the following reliefs:
A) "declare the election of respondent no.1 as Member of Legislative Assembly from 249 Patti Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh as null and void and declare the petitioner as duly election as Member of aforesaid constituency.
B) Pass an order for summoning all 955 ballot papers which were cast by electors on election duty at 'PB Facilitation Centres' established in the constituency at training places and to declare the result after counting them.
C) Pass such other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.
D) Award costs to the petitioner."
2. Brief facts, which led to the filing of the instant election petition are, that the petitioner, who is the political leader, was one of the contesting candidate for the seat of the Member of the State Legislative Assembly in the State of Uttar Pradesh from 249 Patti Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh. The petitioner had received 61278 votes whereas the first respondent had received 61434 votes and, as such, the respondent no.1 was declared elected as Member of Legislative Assembly by a margin of 156 votes. It is said that the result of the election has been materially affected by improper refusal/rejection of 955 postal ballot papers, which were neither opened nor counted by the Returning Officer during the counting of the votes. The persons, who are either in defence services or in other services or under detention or on election duty, who were not able to reach their respective polling stations on the day of poll, are permitted to cast their votes by postal ballot papers for which the provisions have been made in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1961'), wherein it is provided that such voters have to fill up the application in Form -12 and send it to the Returning Officer before seven days of the voting. In the present case, the training-cum-postal ballot facilitation centre was established and the authorized representative of the contesting candidates were also allowed to remain present at the facilitation centre. While adopting the aforesaid procedure, the postal ballots were given to the polling personnel at election duty relating to the Constituency No.249 Patti Assembly and drop boxes were also kept there with. In this Constituency, 955 polling personnel exercised their right to cast votes through postal ballot paper by dropping the same in the drop box. The aforesaid 955 polling personnel also completed the necessary formalities as provided in the Hand Book of Returning Officer 2009. Form 13-A is meant only for the identification of the persons as a voter of the constituency and the attestation is done by the authorized officer.
3. After the polling was over on 19.02.2012, the Deputy District Election Officer, District Pratapgarh wrote a letter dated 23.02.2012 to the Chief Electoral Officer, Lucknow seeking some clarification with regard to the counting of postal ballots. In the said letter, it was mentioned that the Returning Officer has himself identified the said electors and after being fully satisfied, issued the ballot papers and for this reason, Form 13-A was not issued because it was not felt necessary to do so. The said letter was forwarded to the Election Commission of India for necessary guidelines and the Election Commission of India issued a letter dated 05.03.2012 stating that only such postal ballot papers, which have been issued and received back as per the statutory requirements shall be counted.
4. On the date of counting i.e. on 06.03.2012, the petitioner had appointed Sri Vinod Pandey as his Election Agent for watching the counting. When the postal ballot papers were to be counted, it was revealed that there was only one postal ballot paper, which was received by post in the envelop whereas there were 955 postal ballot papers contained in two ballot boxes but the fold of these ballot papers was not opened and they were rejected by marking the word 'rejected'. Therefore, the aforesaid 955 postal ballot papers were neither opened nor counted in the election, regarding which the Election Agent of the petitioner submitted an application but the Returning Officer had not taken any action and subsequently rejected the said application on 06.03.2012. The difference (margin of votes) between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was only 156 votes but 955 postal ballot papers were not at all counted causing serious prejudice. Therefore, it amounts to improper refusal to count the ballot papers and there was non-compliance of the provisions contained in the Representation of People Act 1951 (for short 'Act 1951) and the Rules of the 1961. In these circumstances, the election of the respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside and 955 postal ballot papers deserved to be counted after opening the same.
5. Respondent no.1 has contested the Election Petition and has filed his written statement. In the written statement, some preliminary objections were raised regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Order VI Rule 2(3) Code of Civil Procedure as well as non supply of complete copy as provided under Clause 'c' of Section (1) of Section 83 of the 'Act 1951' as well as non-signing of the annexures.
6. Respondent no.1 has submitted that the petition is absolutely frivolous and based on concocted and afterthought allegations. The petitioner has not shown any valid grounds for interference by this Hon'ble Court. The process for counting of votes received by post is prescribed under Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961. However, the minutes dated 20.02.2012 clearly indicates that the procedure in the election has been followed properly. The postal ballots have been rightly rejected and no irregularity or error has been committed by the Returning Officer. The petitioner has mentioned the contradictory averments in his petition and most of the contents in number of the paragraphs of the petition have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner himself has not followed the provisions of law and, as such, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
7. In the written statement filed by the respondent no.7, in most of the paragraphs, it has been mentioned that the contents of such paragraph require no comments but it has also been stated that the whole process of the election has completed according to due process of law as well as the Act and Rules. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Respondent no.8, in reply to the contents of the election petition, has stated in most of the paragarphs that it does not call for any reply and the Election Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Except the respondent no.1, no other respondent has finally contested the petition.
9. The notices upon the other respondents was published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 19.05.2012. Therefore, the service upon the other respondents has been deemed sufficient.
10. It is relevant to mention that during the course of hearing, various other applications under various provisions of law as well as preliminary objections were raised, which have been decided by different orders and such orders shall form part of this judgment.
11. Upon the pleadings of the parties, on 13.12.2012, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma has framed the following issues:
i. Whether the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Rules and the Orders made there under and also the provisions made in the exercise of powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India including the handbook of returning officer?
ii. Whether non-issuance (it should be issuance) of Form 13-A to the electors of election duties was mandatory requirement in view of electors requirement to produce their appointment letter for election duty along with Electors' Photo Identity Card (E.P.I.C.) or copy of official identity card along with Form - 12? If so, its effect.
iii. whether the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper refusal/rejection of 955 ballot papers which were neither opened nor counted by the Returning Officer during the counting of votes?
iv. Whether non-compliance of the statutory requirement admittedly by the returning officer of 249 Patti U.P. Assembly Constituency in issuing and receiving back of postal ballot papers to electors on election duty who have cast their vote at Postal Ballot Facilitation Centre has vitiated the entire election? If yes, its effect.
v. Whether Election Commission of India was required to appoint day and fix hours for taking fresh poll at Postal Ballot Facilitation Centre (P.B.F.C.) as required under Section 58 (2) of Representation of People Act, 1951?
vi. Whether the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 (3) Code of Civil Procedure and also for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 83 (1) (C) of the Representation of People Act, 1951?
vii. Whether the provisions of Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 has been followed and the postal ballot papers received without cover in Form 13-C by the Returning Officer shall be counted after scrutinizing the declaration in Form 13-A and there is any illegality in rejecting the ballot papers found without mandatory declaration and endorsement on the cover in Form 13-B?
viii. Whether the procedure in Election has been followed properly after scrutiny of polling booths, the necessary documents, i.e. Registrar 17-A, Form - 17C and Report of Micro observers has been properly consider and found the same correct in presence of all the candidates of the parties and their representatives have shown their satisfaction?
ix. Whether the grounds taken in the Election Petition are tenable in the eyes of law and the procedure adopted under Chapter XIV Clause 14.1 to 14.3 of the Handbook for Returning Officers is not in accordance to the procedure given in the Handbook for the purpose?
x. Whether 955 ballot papers were in order as per statutory requirement given in the handbook as well as the circulars issued by Election Commission of India time to time and the statutory requirement given in the handbook as well as the circulars issued by Election Commission of India time to time and the statutory requirement of Form 13-A has been followed and if so its effect?
xi. Whether the postal ballot papers have been properly identified by the Returning Officer and the procedure given by the purpose has been properly adopted and any provision of The Representation of People Act has been violated by the authority concerned declaring the opposite party No.1 as return candidate?
xii. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected due to non-joinder of necessary party and the Election Petition itself not maintainable as per preliminary objections raised by respondent No.1?
xiii. Whether the allegation made against the Chief Electoral Officer with regard to the conduct of the election and without impleading him as party the Election Petition cannot be adjudicated?
xiv. Whether the petitioner has comply the provisions of Section 83 of the People Representative Act and the relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted without constituting the proper pleading in accordance to the provisions of law?"
Subsequently, the following additional issues were framed on 14.03.2013.
xv. Whether the petitioner has raised objection before the returning officer prior to proceeding further in the counting of votes regarding the procedure adopted in the Election Process in accordance to provisions of the Representations of the People Act, 1951 ?
xvi. Whether the provisions of Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 has been followed and the postal ballot papers received without cover in Form-13-C by the Returning Officer shall be counted after scrutinizing the declaration in Form 13-A and there is any illegality in rejecting the ballot papers found without mandatory declaration and endorsement on the cover in Form 13-B ?
xvii. Whether the counting of postal ballot papers started on 06.03.2012 at 8.00 a.m. and continued upto 3.30 pm and the result has been declared by the returning officer in Form 21-C of the Election Rules declaring opposite party No.1 as duly elected returned candidate of 249 Patti Constituency Assembly after satisfying himself about the fairness of counting of votes and complete accuracy of compilation of result in Form 20 and the name of opposite party no.1 has correctly being published under Section 67 of the Representations of the People's Act, 1951 ?
xviii. Whether 955 ballot papers were in order as per statutory requirement given in the handbook as well as the circulars issued by Election Commission of India time to time and the statutory requirement of Form-13-A has been followed and if so its effect?
xix. Whether the postal ballot papers have been properly identified by the Returning Officer and the procedure given by the purpose has been properly adopted and any provision of the Representations of the People's Act has been violated by the authority concerned declaring the opposite party no.1 as return candidate ?
xx. Whether the allegation made against the Chief Electoral officer with regard to the conduct of the election and without impleading him as party the Election Petition cannot be adjudicated ?
xxi. Whether the Election Petition is not maintainable as in the present Election Petition the petitioner has raised question in respect of counting of postal ballot papers and there is no allegation of corrupt practice against the returned candidate ?"
Thirteen annexures have been filed by petitioner along with Election Petition, out of which Annexure 7 has been marked as Ex.1. The respondent no.1 has filed six documents received under R.T.I. Act.
12. The plaintiff had filed his examination in chief through affidavit, upon which the cross examination of Rajendra Pratap Singh (PW-1) has been conducted on 29.03.2016. In the affidavit of examination in chief, the petitioner has verified the averments made in election petition as well as certified copy of the documents issued from the District Election Office, which have also been filed along with the list of documents, which includes the appointment of Assistant Returning Officer as well as certified copy of the report filed by the Returning Officer dated 21.03.2012 and also filed certified copy of the letter issued by the Officer on Special Duty wherein the Deputy District Election Officer, Pratapgarh sought verification from the Chief Electoral Officer, State of U.P.; directions with regard to non-issuance of Form 13-A at the PBFC and has also verified that on the basis of Form 12, votes were allowed to be cast with utmost secrecy (verified by the R.O./A.R.O.) that they are voters of the Constituency and therefore, Form 13-A was neither given to the voters nor take back from them. The Chief Electoral Officer forwarded the said letter for necessary instructions to the Election Commission, certified copy of which has also been filed as Document-6 and photocopy of which is also Annexure No.7 to the writ petition.
The election - petitioner has also testified that certified copy of the e-mail sent by the District Election Officer to the Commission on 4th March 2012 (Ext. Ka-1) wherein the District Election Officer has clarified as to why Form 13(A) (B) and (C) were not issued to the voters on election duty.
13. The cross examination of the petitioner has been recorded on 29.03.2016. The petitioner has also examined Sri M. Dev Raj, Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India (the then District Magistrate, Pratapgarh) as PW-2, who has proved the e-mail communication (Annexure 7 to the petition) and has stated that he had sent this e-mail to the Deputy Election Commissioner. This Annexure 7 has been marked as Ext. Ka-1. This witness has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 on 11.04.2016.
14. The petitioner has examined Sri Vinod Pandey as PW-3, who has stated that he was the election agent of the petitioner and has supported the averments of his affidavit of examination in chief stating that objection was raised for non-counting of Postal Ballots.
15. The respondent no.1 has summoned and examined Sri T.O. Suraj, Secretary to Government of Kerala, Parliamentary Affairs, Trivendram as DW-1, who was observer in the election of 2012 for 249 Patti Assembly Constituency. This witness has stated that since the date of filing of nomination papers and till the declaration of the result, he was posted at Patti Constituency as observer but he had no direct involvement regarding the activities that who, how and when has applied for postal ballot. He has further stated that on the date of counting, he has received a complaint of Mr. Vinod Pandey for counting of postal ballot papers, upon which he had passed the order on 06.03.2012 and has further stated that the postal ballots, which were not having the declaration Form 13-A, were rejected. This witness has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav (DW-2) in his statement before the court deposed that in the year 2012, he was Returning Officer for Patti Assembly Constituency and taking into consideration the convenience of the voters, the postal ballot papers were issued on the date of training. The official had not given any separate application. The names of the persons whom the postal ballot papers were issued were mentioned in a register and they were got signed by them and after comparing with the voters' list, they were provided the postal ballot. There were separate drop boxes for each Constituency. No declaration Form was given to the voters and he did not remember that whether counter foil was published or not. He has further stated that on the date of counting on 06.03.2012, there were only one postal ballot paper, which was accepted and remaining 955 ballot papers were rejected because they did not contain Form 13-A. This witness has been cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner.
17. Both the parties to the petition closed their evidence.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 have submitted their written arguments. Learned counsel for both the parties have also been heard orally at length and I have also perused the record.
19. Before recording the findings on the issues, it is relevant to mention that margin of victory of respondent no.1 against the petitioner is only 156 votes. It is also not in dispute that 955 postal ballot papers have been rejected because they did not contain the declaration in Form 13-A.
20. Before discussing the issue, some relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act 1951 as well as Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 are reproduced as under:
Sections 58, 84, 98, 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act 1951 and Rule 23 & 54-A of the Rules 1961 reads as under:
Section 58 Fresh poll in the case of destruction, etc., of ballot boxes.--(1) If at any election,--
(a) any ballot box used at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll is unlawfully taken out of the custody of the presiding officer or the returning officer, or is accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, or is damaged or tampered with, to such an extent, that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or (aa) any voting machine develops a mechanical failure during the course of the recording of votes; or]
(b) any such error or irregularity in procedure as is likely to vitiate the poll is committed at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission.
(2) Thereupon the Election Commission shall, after taking all material circumstances into account; either--
(a) declare the poll at that polling station or place to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking a fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the day so appointed and the hours so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit, or
(b) if satisfied that the result of a fresh poll at that polling station or place will not, in any way, affect the result of the election or that 5[the mechanical failure of the voting machine or] the error or irregularity in procedure is not material, issue such directions to the returning officer as it may deem proper for the further conduct and completion of the election.
(3) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or orders made there under shall apply to every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll.] Section 98. Decision of the High Court. - At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition, the High Court shall make an order -
(a) dismissing the election petition; or
(b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void; or
(c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected
(d) ......
Section 84. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.--A petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claim a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.] Section 100: Grounds for declaring election to be void.--[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court] is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act 9[or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate [by an agent other than his election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non--compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.] (2) If in the opinion of [the High Court], a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice but [the High Court] is satisfied--
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and 5[without the consent], of the candidate or his election agent;
(b) omitted
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then [the High Court] may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void.
Sections 101 Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected.--If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and [the High Court] is of opinion--
(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or
(b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt 8 practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, [the High Court] shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.
Rule 23 of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 : Issue of ballot paper -
(1) A postal ballot paper shall be sent by post under certificate of posting to the elector together with--
(a) a declaration in Form 13A;
(b) a cover in Form 13B;
(c) a large cover addressed to the returning officer in Form 13C; and
(d) instructions for the guidance of the elector in Form 13D:
Provided that the returning officer may, in the case of a special voter or a voter on election duty, deliver the ballot paper and Forms, or cause them to be delivered, to such voter personally.
(2) The returning officer shall at the same time--
(a) record on the counterfoil of the ballot paper the electoral roll number of the elector as entered in the marked copy of the electoral roll;
(b) mark the name of the elector in the marked copy of the electoral roll to indicate that a ballot paper has been issued to him, without however recording therein the serial number of the ballot paper issued to that elector; and
(c) ensure that that elector is not allowed to vote at a polling station.] (3) Before any ballot paper is issued to an elector at an election in a local authorities' constituency or by assembly members, the serial number of the ballot paper shall be effectively concealed in such manner as the Election Commission may direct.
(4) Every officer under whose care or through whom a postal ballot paper is sent shall ensure its delivery to the addressee without delay.
(5) After ballot papers have been issued to all the electors entitled to vote by post, the returning officer shall--
(a) at an election in a parliamentary or assembly constituency, 2[subject to the provisions of rule 27P seal up in a packet] that part of the marked copy of the electoral roll which relates to service voters and record on the packet a brief description of its contents and the date on which it was sealed and send the other relevant parts of the marked copy to the several presiding officers 3[or marking the names of electors to whom ballot papers are issued at the polling stations without however recording therein the serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the electors]; and
(b) at any other election, seal up in a packet the marked copy of the electoral roll and record on the packet a brief description of its contents and the date on which it is sealed.
(6) The returning officer shall also seal up in a separate packet the counterfoils of the ballot papers issued to electors entitled to vote by post and record on the packet a brief description of its contents and the date on which it was sealed.
Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961. Counting of votes received by post--
i. The returning officer shall first deal with the postal ballot papers in the manner hereinafter provided.
ii. No cover in Form 13-C received by the returning officer after the expiry of the time fixed in that behalf shall be opened and no vote contained in any such cover shall be counted.
iii. The other covers shall be opened one after another and as each cover is opened, the returning officer shall first scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A contained therein.
iv. If the said declaration is not found, or has not been duly signed and attested, or is otherwise substantially defective, or if the serial number of the ballot paper as entered in it differs from the serial number endorsed on the cover in Form 13B, that cover shall not be opened, and after making an appropriate endorsement thereon, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper therein contained.
v. Each cover so endorsed and the declaration received with it shall be replaced in the cover in Form 13C and all such covers in Form 13C shall be kept in a separate packet which shall be sealed and on which shall be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of its content.
vi. The returning officer shall then place all the declarations in Form 13A which he has found to be in order in a separate packet which shall be sealed before any cover in Form 13B is opened and on which shall be recorded the particulars referred to in sub-rule (5).
vii. The covers in Form 13B not already dealt with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then be opened one after another and the returning officer shall scrutinise each ballot paper and decide the validity of the vote recorded thereon.
viii. A postal ballot paper shall be rejected--
(a) if it bears any mark (other than the mark to record the vote) or writing by which the elector can be identified; or] (aa) if no vote is recorded thereon; or
(b) if votes are given on it in favour of more candidates than one; or
(c) if it is a spurious ballot paper; or
(d) if it is so damaged or mutilated that its identity as a genuine ballot paper cannot be established; or
(e) if it is not returned in the cover sent along with it to the elector by the returning officer.
ix. A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall be rejected if the mark indicating the vote is placed on the ballot paper in such manner as to make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given.
x. A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once, if the intention that the vote shall be for a particular candidate clearly appears from the way the paper is marked.
xi. The returning officer shall count all the valid votes given by postal ballot in favour of each candidates, record the total thereof in the result sheet in Form 20 and announce the same.
xii. Thereafter, all the valid ballot papers and all the rejected ballot papers shall be separately bundled and kept together in a packet which shall be sealed with the seals of the returning officer and of such of the candidates, their election agents or counting agents as may desire to affix their seals thereon and on the packet so sealed shall be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of its contents.
For ready reference Form 12 and Form 13-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 are reproduced as follows:
[FORM 12] (See rules 19 and 20) LETTER OF INTIMATION TO RETURNING OFFICER To The Returning Officer for Assembly/Parliamentary constituency.
Sir, I intend to cast my vote by post at the ensuing election to the Legislative Assembly/House of the People from the ................. Assembly/Parliamentary constituency.
My name is entered at S. No........in Part No............. of the electoral role for ............... assembly constituency comprised within ......................Parliamentary constituency.
The ballot paper may be sent to me at the following address:--
.................................
.................................
.................................
(This side is to be used only when the elector signs the declaration himself) I hereby declare that I am the elector to whom the postal ballot paper bearing serial number............has been issued at the above election.
Date.............
Signature of elector.
Address...............
__________ Attestation of signature The above has been signed in my presence by...............(elector) who** is personally known to me/has been identified to my satisfaction by..........(identifier) who is personally known to me.
Signature of Attesting Officer Signature of identifier, if any..... Designation................
Address............. Address.................... Date....................... (This side is to be used when the elector cannot sign himself) I hereby declare that I am the elector to whom the postal ballot paper bearing serial number.............has been issued at the above election. Signature of Attesting Officer on behalf of elector. Date.......... Address of Elector.............. __________ CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that--12 1. the above named elector is personally known to me/has been identified to my satisfaction by.....................(identifier) who is personally known to me; 2. I am satisfied that the elector is illiterate/suffers from.................(infirmity) and is unable to record his vote himself or sign his declaration; 3. I was requested by him to mark the ballot paper and to sign the above declaration on his behalf; and 4. the ballot paper was marked and the declaration signed by me on his behalf in his presence and in accordance with his wishes. Signature of Attesting Officer............. Signature of identifier, if any.............. Designation........... Address.............. Address............... Date.................. _______________________________________________________________ Here insert one of the following alternatives as may be appropriate:-- 1. House of the People from the.............. constituency. 2. Legislative Assembly from the............. constituency. 3. Council of States by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of .........................(State). 4. Council of States by the members of the electoral college of.......................... (Union territory). 5. Legislative Council by the members of the Legislative Assembly. 6. Legislative Council from the............. constituency. **Strike off the inappropriate alternative. 21. Para 10.3 of Chapter X (Ballot Papers and Voting Machines) of the Hand Book of Returning Officers of 2009 is reproduced herein below: 10.3 You, as RO should ensure that:
(a) All polling officials should, without exception, be provided Form 12 for applying for postal ballot paper along with their appointment letter with a request to submit duly filled Form 12 on the first day of training. They may be told that there is no need to fill up "address" column of Form 12 since postal ballot papers will be issued to them personally at the training venue itself.
(b) You should further make adequate arrangement to receive Form 12 at the training center Adequate number of Form 12 should also be kept at the training venue so that any polling personnel who are in need of Form 12 can get it.
(c) When any such person submit a duly filled Form 12, he shall be required to produce, his appointment letter and also the EPIC issued to him or a copy of any official identity card issued to him by his department. Your official, who receive such Form 12 should see that it is filled up correctly and, if not, then the concerned polling official should be asked to correct. All duly filled applications (Form 12) received shall be processed immediately by the concerned Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer well before the second round of training. Hence, it is imperative that the second round of training is held after the postal ballot papers are printed and ready for issue. On the day of second round of training, you ensure separate and proper arrangements for issuing the postal ballot to the persons concerned. As the trainees may be elector of different to different ACs, it becomes imperative that all R.Os/ A.R.Os along with their staff will remain present at the training venue for the above purpose. Now -
(d) First, identification of the trainee official whom PB is being issued shall be verified thorough EPIC or any other photo ID as well as appointment order.
(e) The cover containing the postal ballot paper will be handed over to him after obtaining his sign in the register for marinating account of issue of PB to polling staff in Format XXIVB. Simultaneous entry (PB) shall be made using red ink in the marked copy of the electoral roll. It should be made clear to him that once a PB is issued to a polling personnel called for training he shall after that cast his vote only through postal ballot even if he is exempted from election duty subsequently or kept on reserve. Considering the postal delays and inconvenience caused to such electors in returning back the PB after recording his vote, the Commission now encourages the system in which such electors, on receiving the PB from R.O/A.R.O record their preference on the postal ballot paper, then and there at "PB Facilitation Centre". For this, you should provide for some covered space at some distance from training centre, with some chairs and a table with facility to record vote in complete secrecy.
(f) When elector reaches to above said Facilitation centre, some Govt officer, as is authorized under law to attest Form 13A.
(g) The polling official (trainee), then record his vote on postal ballot, fold it and then
(h) Drop it in a duly locked and sealed "drop box" pertaining to his AC. The drop box shall be kept under close supervision of concerned RO/ARO and ECI Observer.
Note: 1. The D.E.O / SP / SDM shall personally inspect the training venue cum postal ballot facilitation center in advance in order to ensure adequate security measures are in place. As the electors will be casting their vote at the training venue proper arrangements shall be ensured to restrict entry to the venue only to the appointed polling staff and other authorized government servants and no other person. When the voters mark the ballot with their preference the secrecy of ballot shall be enforced without compromise. If the authorized representatives of contesting candidates remain present at the facilitation center proper seating arrangement shall be made for them. The presence of such representatives shall be registered by obtaining their signature in a register. The entire process including the arrangements made for this purpose shall be recorded in video.
FINDINGS Issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 All these issues relate to same controversy regarding postal ballots, therefore, they are taken together for decision.
22. During the course of arguments, it has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that because the identity of the voters was verified, therefore, there was no occasion to submit Form 13-A. It has also been submitted that there was no fault on the part of the voters, therefore, the candidate cannot suffer for the latches of election machinery in not issuing the Form 13-A. It has also been submitted that the District Election Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'DEO') had himself wrote a letter to the Election Commission and e-mail was also sent; upon which the Election Commission has issued direction that votes should be counted in accordance with law. If the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1951 as well as Rules of 1961 was not followed, then under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act of 1951, fresh pools regarding 955 postal ballots should have been conducted for which the Election Commission of India was duty bound. The 'DEO' has himself admitted in Ext.1 that Form 13-A was not issued and the Election Commission has clarified that 'DEO' will not evolve his own procedure. The margin of victory was only 156 votes, therefore, rejection of 955 postal ballots has materially affected the result. Therefore, the election of opposite party no.1 is liable to be set aside.
23. Respondent no.1 has drawn my attention towards the provisions of Section 84, 98 and 100 of the Act of 1951 and has submitted that the provision of Section 58 of the Act of 1951 are not applicable because no mandamus has been sought by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that there is no pleadings that Form 12 was not issued. Regarding the postal ballots, the procedure has been prescribed, which has to be followed strictly. Neither the counter foils nor the register has been brought before the Court, therefore, the said 955 votes cannot be counted. It has also been submitted that the identification and attestation are two different things and the rules required for attestation, which has not been followed. The rule also provides that postal ballots should be kept in envelop but they have not been kept in the envelop. In absence of Form 13-B and 13-C, the said 955 postal ballots cannot be counted because they were bogus or vague votes. Therefore, they have been rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. Lastly, he has submitted that the entries of Form 20 have not been challenged, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
24. Section 60 of the Act of 1951 provides special procedure for voting by certain classes of persons, which further provides that provision may be made by rules made under this Act. The Rules of 1961 have been enacted and Rule 19 provides that if a special voter who wishes to vote by post at an election, then he shall send an intimation in Form 12 to the Returning Officer. Rule 20 provides that a voter on election duty, who wishes to vote by post at an election, shall send an application in Form 12 to the Returning Officer. In both these rules the word 'shall' has been used. Therefore, the voter is duty bound to send the intimation in Form 12 to the Returning Officer. Although, the petitioner (PW-1) has shown his ignorance about the issuance of Form 12 as well as submission of Form 13-A by the concerned voter. Vinod Pandey (PW-3) who was the Election Agent for the petitioner has stated that he had raised objection regarding non-counting of postal ballots.
25. Certainly, the issuance of Form 12 and Form 13-A along with the envelop in Form 13-B and 13-C is the duty of the Returning Officer, which has been admitted by Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav (DW-2), who was the Returning Officer regarding the Election of 2012 for 249 Patti Assembly Constituency of District Pratapgarh. Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav (DW-2) has stated that taking into consideration the convenience of voters, postal ballots were issued on the date of training and no such voter had given any such application separately that he should be issued the postal ballot. He has further admitted that no declaration form was given to the voters. He has further admitted that 955 votes were declared invalid because they did not contain the Form 13-A. However, in the cross examination, he has given a different statement stating that postal ballots were to be issued to the voters who had deposited Form 12. He has further admitted in the cross examination that all the persons, to whom the postal ballots were issued, had given Form 13 but had not issued Form 13-A to any of the voter because it was not given in any other Constituency and it was decided that Form 13-A shall not be issued. He has further clarified it in the cross examination that because identification of the voters was done by the duty card and the voter identity card. Therefore, Form 13-A was not issued.
26. Certainly, the election machinery, which also includes the Returning Officer, are duty bound to follow procedure as mentioned in the Act of 1951 and Rules of 1961. The defence witness Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav has given both way statement regarding Form 12. In the examination in Chief, he has stated that no voter involved in the election duty had given any separate application for issuance of postal ballot, but in the cross examination he has admitted that whenever postal ballots were issued, the concerned persons had given the Form 12. His statement appears to be totally false in view of the information procured by the opposite party through R.T.I. The information procured on the RTI has been submitted by the supplementary affidavit filed under order VIII Rule 1-A read with Order XI Rule 15 CPC on 08.02.2016, which has been permitted by the Court.
27. A perusal of the letter No.70 dated 03.02.2016 issued by the Assistant District Election Officer of Pratapgarh shows that Form 12 was not given by any of the official who were on training of election duty. Any of 955 officials to whom the postal ballot was given, had not submitted the Form 12. This has further been clarified by letter no.77 dated 03.02.2016 stating clearly that no official, who were engaged in the election duty, was either given or required to filling Form 12. Certainly, the documentary evidence as will prevail over the oral evidence. By the documentary evidence, it is proved that Form 12 was not issued to any of the voters, who were given postal ballot. Therefore, the statement of Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav (DW-2) in the cross examination is absolutely false. On the other hand, he has admitted that Form 13-A was also not issued to any of the voters because it was not given in any other Constituency.
28. It is relevant to mention that Rule 19 and 20 of the Rules 1961 provides for letter of intimation to the Returning Officer by a person who wants to cast his vote in Form 12. However, Rule 23 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1961 provides the procedure for declaration by elector and his signatures have to be attested by the attesting officer. Form 13-A also contains certificate regarding some facts.
29. As mentioned above, requirement of submission of intimation to the Returning Officer in Form 12 is mandatory. Further, the requirement of Rule 23 (1) (a) of the Rules 1961 is also mandatory and the DEO or the Returning Officer have no option to evolve their own procedure. It is also not disputed that non-counting of 955 postal ballots was objected by the Election Agent of the petitioner. The hand-book for Returning Officer 2009 also provides the procedure and the instruction No.10.3 is absolutely clear in this regard and there is no ambiguity. The guidance 10.3 starts with mandatory clause that all polling officials should, without exception, be provided the Form 12 for applying for postal ballot paper along with their appointment letter. The language of the said Hand-Book is in accordance with the provisions of Act 1951 as well as the provisions of Rule 1961. The word ''without exception' requires that the issuance of Form 12 and submission of Form 12 cannot be waived. In the same way, the guidelines of 10.3 further provides for attestation of Form 13-A. Although in the case of Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal; (2009) 10 SCC 541; Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph 23 has held as under:
"There is no quarrel with the proposition that the instructions contained in the Handbook for the Returning Officers are issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its statutory functions and are, therefore, binding on the Returning Officers. They are obliged to follow them in letter and spirit. But the question for consideration is whether the afore-extracted paragraphs of the election petition disclose material facts so as to constitute a complete cause of action. In other words, the question is whether the alleged omission on the part of the Returning Officer ipso facto "materially affected" the election result. It goes without saying that the averments in the said two paragraphs are to be read in conjunction with the preceding paragraphs in the election petition. What is stated in the preceding paragraphs, as can be noticed from grounds (i) and (ii) reproduced above, is that by the time specimen signature of the polling agent were circulated 80% of the polling was over and because of the absence of the polling agent the voters got confused and voted in favour of the first respondent. In our opinion, to say the least, the pleading is vague and does not spell out as to how the election results were materially affected because of these two factors. These facts fall short of being "material facts" as contemplated in Section 83(1)(a) of the Act to constitute a complete cause of action in relation to allegation under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. It is not the case of the election petitioner that in the absence of his election agent there was some malpractice at the polling stations during the polling."
30. In accordance with the said decision also, the guidelines issued by the Election Commission have also statutory effect.
31. It is also relevant to mention that when the objection was raised by the election agent of the petitioner for not-counting the 955 postal ballots, the Deputy Election Officer, Pratapgarh had sent a letter No.1502-Nirvachan-2012 dated 23.02.2012 to O.S.D. of Chief Election Officer, Uttar Pradesh seeking some clarification regarding Form 12 and Form 13-A, who had send the letter No.678 (CRO-3) dated 01.05.2012 to the Principal Secretary of Election Commission of India for seeking instructions in this regard. M. Dev Raj, who was the District Election Officer at that time had also sent e-mail message dated 04.03.2012 at 11.41 PM seeking clarification in view of the aforesaid letters in which he has specifically stated that Form 13-A were not issued by the RO/ARO because separate registration of identification was maintained. He was also aware of the instructions of the Election Commission and has further stated that "if one were to go by the above mentioned instructions, then the said votes may have to be rejected for lack of Form 13-A, B and C". He had requested the Election Commission of India for further directions. The Election Commission of India had given the immediate response on 05.03.2012 and has issued a letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, U.P., which is reproduced as under:
"Dated : 5th March 2015 To, The Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
Sub: General Election to U.P. Legislative Assembly, 2012 - counting of postal ballot in ACs comprised in district Pratapgarh - regarding Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter number 678/CEO-3 dated 1st March 2012, received today, on the subject cited, read with e-mail dated 4th March 2012 of DM-cum-DEO, Pratapgarh to DEC(VZ) and to state that the Commission has noted with the surprise that the DEO Pratapgarh has mentioned that there is no instruction in the matter either in HB or ROs or in ECI's instruction dated 05th May 2011. He should be directed to read carefully Para 27 and 28 of our aforesaid instruction and also Para 14.3 of Chapter XIV of ROs Hand Book. The Commission cannot allow District Election Officers to devise their own systems and mechanism. It is clear that District Election Machinery of Pratapgarh has not followed the instructions of Election Commission and the Prescribed law in the matter of issuing postal ballot to poll personnel in the District and which is a serious matter.
The Commission would like to reiterate its earlier instructions that only and only such postal ballot papers, which have been issued and received back as per statutory requirements shall be counted tomorrow.
You may please reiterate these instructions to all the districts of the state and ensure that prescribed legal provisions and ECI instructions are strictly followed by all DEOs during the counting tomorrow. DEOs may be directed to bring this to be notice of all counting observers.
Yours Faithfully Sd/-
HARBANS SINGH SECRETARY Copy to : The DM-cum-CEO, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh."
32. The Election Commission of India has specifically directed the Chief Electoral Officer, U.P. that Commission cannot allow the District Election Officer to device their own system and mechanism and it is clear that the district election machinery of Pratapgarh has not followed the instructions of Election Commission and the prescribed law in that manner of issuing postal ballots to poll personnel in the district and which is a serious matter. The directions in the Rules of 1961 as well as Hand Book for Returning Officers 2009 were clear, even then the Returning Officer of 249 Patti Consistency Pratapgarh had devised his own system and mechanism, which was at all not permitted under the Rules of 1961 as well as Hand Book of 2009.
33. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the authorities including the Election Commission of India to have acted in accordance with Section 58 of the Act 1951 because in view of the provisions of Section 58 (1) (b), there was error or irregularity in the procedure as is likely to vitiate the poll at a polling station. In view of the provisions of section 58(1) (a), it was the duty of the Election Commission to have appointed a day and fix the hours for taking a fresh poll at that polling station regarding postal ballots but unfortunately, it has not been done.
34. The grounds have been mentioned in section 100 of the Act of 1951 and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) provides that if the High Court is of opinion that by any non-compliance with the provisions of Constitution or of this Act or any rules or orders made under this act, even committed, then the election of the returned candidate shall be declared void.
35. In view of the above above discussion, it is clear that DEO or the Returning Officer have no option to evolve their own device. It is also proved beyond any doubt that the voters had not given any letter of intimation in Form 12. It is also proved that Form 13-A were neither provided to the voters nor they submitted the declaration, though, it was incumbent upon the DEO as well as Returning Officer to have provided the Form 12 to the Election Personnel who were involved in the duty to submit their letter of intimation to the Returning Officer.
Certainly, in absence of Form 12 and Form 13-A, their postal ballots cannot be treated to be a valid vote but at the same time, the lapses have been committed by the DEO and the concerned Returning Officer, which cannot be excused for any ground. Therefore, I am of the view that the result of the election, in so far as it relates to the returned candidate, has been materially affected on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the 1951 Act read with Rules of 1961 as well as Hand Book for Returning Officer 2009, issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in "affirmative".
36. Issuance of Form 12 and 13-A to the electors of election duty was mandatory requirement and the non-compliance of it, has resulted in material irregularity. Thus, the issue no.2 is accordingly decided in "affirmative".
37. Rejection of 955 postal ballot papers for want of Form 13-A cannot be said to be improper but the election result has been materially affected by non-issuance of Form 12 and Form 13-A. Thus, the issue no.3 is accordingly decided in "affirmative".
In view of the above discussion, issue no.4 is decided in "affirmative". Issue no. 5 is also decided accordingly in "affirmative" holding that the Election Commission of India was required to appoint a day and fix hours for taking fresh polls in view of the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
38. The issue no.7 is accordingly decided in "negative" holding that the provision of Rule 54-A of the Rules 1961 have not been followed by the Returning Officer.
39. Issue no.10 & 11 are accordingly, decided in "negative" holding that 955 postal ballot papers were not in order as per statutory requirement and statutory requirement of Form 12 and 13-A have not been followed.
Issue no. 16 is decided accordingly that because provisions of Rule 54-A have not been followed, therefore, the said votes cannot be counted.
Issue no. 18 is accordingly decided that 955 postal ballot papers were not in order as per the statutory requirement.
Issue no. 19 is decided in "negative" that the postal ballot papers have not been properly identified and the procedure has not been properly adopted.
40. Issue no.6:
This issue relates to the non-compliance of the provisions of Order VI Rule 2(3) of Code of Civil Procedure as well as mandatory provision of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act of 1951. In the present election petition, the provisions of Order VI Rule (2)(3) as well as provisions of Section 83(1) (c) have been followed. Therefore, the petition is not liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions. The issue is accordingly decided in "negative".
41. Issue no. 8 and 9:
No arguments on this issue has been advanced by any of the parties and no evidence has been led on these points. Therefore, the issues are decided in "affirmative".
42. Issue no. 12:
This issue is regarding non-joinder of necessary party. The provision of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 are clear that a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition or all the contesting candidates and any other candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made. In the present petition, all the contesting candidates have been made parties. Therefore, the suit is not barred by any non-joinder of necessary party. The issue is decided in "negative".
43. Issue no.13:
No personal allegations have been made against the Chief Electoral Officer, therefore, in my opinion, the Chief Electoral Officer is not a necessary party. Issue is accordingly decided in "negative".
44. Issue no.14:
The petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act of 1951 and the pleadings are proper. Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided.
45. Issue no.15:
It is not disputed that Sri Vinod Pandey was the election agent of the petitioner, who had raised objection before the Returning Officer for non-counting of 955 postal ballots. Therefore, the issue is accordingly decided in "positive".
46. Issue no.17:
From the aforesaid discussions, it is not disputed that counting started on 06.03.2012 at 8.00 AM and continued upto 3.30 PM. Certainly, the result has been declared by the Returning Officer in Form 21-C and the opposite party no.1 has been declared as duly elected returned candidate of 249 Patti Assembly Constituency of District Pratapgarh but as discussed above, the procedure regarding postal ballot papers have not been properly followed. The issue is decided accordingly.
47. Issue no.20:
This issue is the repetition of issue no.13. Therefore, the issue is decided in terms of decision of issue no.13.
48. Issue no.21:
It is not necessary that in every election petition, there has to be an allegation of corrupt practices. The allegation may be challenged on other grounds also as mentioned in 1951 Act. Therefore, by not making any allegation of corruption, the petition cannot be said to be not maintainable. Thus, the issue is accordingly decided in "negative".
49. Now the question arise as to which relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the rules regarding the postal ballot papers has not been followed, which is a mandatory requirement. It is also clear that the Returning Officer has evolved his own procedure to which the Election Commission of India has also objected.
50. Non-issuance of Form 12 and Form 13-A are such material irregularities, which have vitiated the election process. In view of the provisions of Section 58 of the Act 1951, when the matter was reported to the Election Commission of India, the Election Commission should have taken steps in view of the provisions of Section 58 of the Act 1951 for appointing a day and fixed time for fresh poll regarding 955 postal ballots but unfortunately, it has not been done.
51. Before parting with, I would like to record that the then Returning Officer, namely, Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav, who is presently reported to be posted as A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) Kanpur, who has also been examined as DW-2, has grossly violated the provisions of Rule 19, 20 and 23 (1)(a) of the Rules of 1961; as well as the Hand Book for Returning Officer 2009, which has statutory force and instead evolved his own procedure unknown to the Act and Rules. The Election Commission of India by letter dated 05.03.2012 has only shown his concern about this unknown procedure but has not further acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 58 of the 1951 Act. Due to non-compliance of the aforesaid Rules, the election process is vitiated resulting in unlawful enjoyment by the respondent no.1 being Member of Legislative Assembly of 249 Patti Constituency, District Pratapgarh.
52. The Statutory authorities are bound to act strictly in consonance with the Act, Rules and procedure prescribed therein for a particular purpose. Further, the State authorities are to act in a fair and transparent manner. Here, the authorities aforesaid, has acted in gross violation of the procedures laid down in the statute and invented his own procedure.
Needless to mention here that when the statute prescribed certain thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner alone and not in any other manner.
53. I have also no hesitation to mention that during the proceedings of this election petition, the respondent no.1 adopted numberless delaying tactics by taking number of adjournments; by moving number of applications under various provisions of CPC; and by not cooperating for early disposal of this election petition. Even on 03.03.2016 the court was compelled to pass the following order:
"(Misc.Application No. Nil of 2016) The application for adjournment has been moved by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, which has been strongly opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petition is pending since 2012 and the respondent No.1 is delaying the hearing of the said election petition.
Today, the date is fixed for further cross-examination of the petitioner and it has been clarified on previous dates also that delaying tactics may not be adopted. There are so many counsel engaged on behalf of the respondents, namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Sri Manoj Verma and others. Needless to say that the proceedings are also delayed by filing various applications one-by-one.
The application for adjournment is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost to be deposited by the respondent No.1 in the Library Fund of Oudh Bar Association on or before the next date of listing.
It is further made clear that if hindrances are created in the disposal of this petition, then this Court shall be constrained to pass such orders, which may result to withhold the salary, the perquisite as well as the Vidhyak Nidhi and other facilities of respondent No.1 because the term of present election is likely to end in March, 2017.
List the case on 29.03.2016, at 2:00 p.m. for further cross-examination of PW-1."
54. From the discussion aforesaid, I am of the view that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of 1951 Act; Rules of 1961; as well as Hand Book for Returning Officer 2009. Therefore, in view of the provision of Section 100 (1)(d) (iv) read with provisions of Section 98 of the Act, the election of the returned candidate is liable to be declared as void.
As far as the second part of relief 'A' is concerned, the petitioner cannot be declared as duly elected Member of Legislative Assembly from 249 Patti Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh because I do not know that how many votes out of 955 rejected postal ballots, he has received.
Relief 'B' can also not be granted for the reason that the said 955 postal ballots were casted against the Rules of 1961, therefore, they cannot be counted.
ORDER
55. The petition is allowed with costs. The Election for Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh 2012 of respondent no.1 as Member of Legislative Assembly from 249 Patti Constituency Assembly Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh is declared as void.
As the election of respondent no.1 is being declared void, therefore, respondent no.1 must not be allowed any benefits of this election and also pension as Member of Legislative Assembly and all other such benefits, which are admissible to an Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly. It is clarified that this period shall confined to General Elections for Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh 2012.
56. For non-compliance and violation of the procedure and Rules, strict action must be taken by the State Government against Sri Sharda Prasad Yadav, ADM (Civil Supplies) Kanpur (the then Returning Officer for 249 Patti Assembly Constituency, District Pratapgarh) and in future, he must not be assigned any important duties or posted on a significant post.
Let a copy of this order be sent immediately to the Election Commission of India; Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, U.P. Legislative Assembly; Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.; Chief Electoral Officer, U.P., Lucknow; and District Magistrate Pratapgarh for necessary action and compliance.
Order Date :- 09th August 2016.
VNP/- [Justice A. N. Mittal]