Heard Shri A. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. K. Shukla, learned State Counsel, Shri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that in the year 2010, an election was held for electing of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Hasanpur, Tewari Block Bazar Shukul District-Amethi, the petitioner has been declared as successful candidate, elected as a Pradhan, opposite party no.2/Smt. Geeta Devi filed an Election Petition No.5 of 2010 under Section 12 (C) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (herein after referred to as the Act).
Thereafter, Smt. Geeta Devi approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.12571 of 2010 (Smt. Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P.), disposed of by order dated 22.12.2010 on reproduction reads as under :-
"The petitioner has already filed election petition before the prescribed authority. Hence the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851: Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and others. However, submission is that the prescribed authority may keep the election petition pending for unlimited period. The statutory provision does not provide to keep the election petition pending.
In view of the above, we permit the petitioner to prefer an application for recounting concerned before the prescribed authority which shall be decided within six months and the election petition filed by the petitioner shall be decided within one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is finally disposed of. "
In pursuance to the said development on behalf of respondent no.2/Smt. Geeta Devi, an application has been given for recounting of votes on the ground that "nyayahit" order for recounting may be passed.
On 1104.2013, opposite party no.2 moved an application for amendment of the election petition with the prayer that the election petition filed by her may be allowed after recounting of the votes, and election held for the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Hasanpur Tewari be cancelled.
From the material on record, the position which emerges out is that by order dated 14.05.2013, an application moved by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner/Sarita for recall of the said order. The said application has been allowed by order dated 3.6.2013. However, after passing of the order dated 30.01.2014, an application has been moved on behalf of the election petitioner/Geeta Devi on 20.01.2014 for recalling of the said order, allowed by the opposite party no.1 by order dated 28.01.2014 and prayer for quashing of the election petition has been incorporated in the election petition.
Further, opposite party no.1 passed an order dated 27.09.2012, on the application moved by the opposite party no.2 for recounting of the votes. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner/Smt. Sarita by filing Writ Petition No.5561 of 2012 (Smt. Sarita vs. U.P. Ziladhikari/Prescribed Authority), disposed of by order dated 15.3.213, the operative portion quoted herein below :-
"I am, therefore, of the opinion and hold that the impugned order has been passed by the SDM Mushafirkhana, suffers from gross irregularities as he has not given time to adduce the evidence to the petitioner i.e. O.P. in the petition before him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to grant time to opposite party/ petitioner to adduce her evidence and then pass a fresh speaking order regarding counting of votes. Since the election petition is also defective, the opposite party who is the petitioner before the SDM be given as an opportunity to move amendment regarding the relief for setting aside the election and the SDM shall decide the matter within three months regarding counting of votes and after passing speaking order and given opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, then decide the petition, because mere counting is not enough. The prescribed authority shall complete the formalities within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the prescribed authority will decide the same on merits in accordance with law given under Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
The petition is disposed of in the light of above observation Thereafter, petitioner/Sarita moved an application for review of the order dated 15.03.2013 by filing Review Petition No.196 of 2013 (Smt. Sarita vs. U.P. Ziladhikari/Prescribed Authority), dismissed by order dated 19.09.2013, the relevant portion quoted herein below :-
"I have gone through the record and ratio of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kattinokkula Murali Krishna Vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and Others reported in 2010 (28) LCD page 216. Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down under what circumstances re-counting of votes of the ballot papers be directed but in this petition the primary duty of the court is to adjudicate the petition in such a manner so as to finally dispose of the case and decide the rights of the parties on merits. The problem here was that it has been clearly mentioned in the order that counting of ballot papers would be of no avail unless consequential relief has been sought, although court suo moto can grant consequential relief but in practice relief should be such as to decide the rights of parties to last extent. This court has directed that to nip in bud of all the grievance of either parties, it is necessary to pass equitable directions in this regard and accordingly direction has been issued. In my opinion, this will not prejudice the right of person who has filed the review. The other thing is that as per statement of learned counsel for respondents that S.D.M. has already moved and acted in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, therefore, it is necessary that matter should be decided as early as possible. I do not find any illegality, impropriety and absurdity in the order passed by this Court. The respondent, who preferred the election petition before the S.D.M. only asked for recounting of votes and in case prayer for recounting of votes is allowed then it is necessary that if the petition is allowed, then what would be next step ? Ordinarily, it was the duty of the petitioner to ask for consequential relief although recounting of votes means that if in the recounting of votes the result is otherwise then what should happen. It is very obvious in case the result is in favour of the petitioner then the election should be set-aside although S.D.M. could suo moto issue such direction but since the matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, it is necessary to connect slips only to settle the scores between the parties upto the hilt i.e. there should remain no question and no dispute regarding this issue. This is only for bringing clarity in fact and not otherwise. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner of this order, therefore, this portion of the order which has been challenged is harmless. The review petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. "
By order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure No.1), opposite party no.1 has allowed the application for recounting of the votes moved by the opposite party no.2, under challenged in the present writ petition.
Shri A. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 passed by opposite party no.2 is contrary to law as the election petition filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 12 (c) of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, there is no justification or reason for recounting of the votes. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others All C.J. 1985 page 196 and on the judgment given in the case of Surendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (29) LCD 1064 wherein paragraph 9 held as under :-
"In the case of N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai and others, AIR 1980 SC 206, Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the view that the allegations which have been made must not only be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence and the narrow margin of votes undoubtedly is an important factor to be considered, but the same would not by itself vitiate the counting or justify recounting. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted below:
"26. Finally, the entire case law on the subject regarding the circumstances under which recount could be ordered was fully summarised and catelogued by this Court in the Case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind 1975 Supp SCR 202 to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party and which may be extracted thus :-
"26. The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where;
(1) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded;
(2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) The court trying the petition is prima 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." "
The next argument advanced by Shri A. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 is that no adequate opportunity has been given to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order. Hence, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside.
Shri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 while defending the impugned order submits that in the present case, the order passed by the opposite party no.1 for recounting of the votes is perfectly valid and no interference by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
He further submits that in the pleadings, before the opposite party no.2, petitioner has not taken any fact or ground that election petitioner/opposite party no.2 is not prayed maintainable, so she cannot raise the said argument at this stage, for setting aside the election petition as not maintainable under Section 12 (c) of the Act. Accordingly, it is argued that due to lingering attitude adopted by the petitioner who is elected as a Pradhan, the election petition has not been decided and the same is pending 2010. In spite of the order pased by a Division Bench of this Court as well as by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, on one or other reason to which petitioner is solely responsible.
It is further contended on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the order passed by the opposite party no.1 for recounting of the votes, under challenge in the present case is perfectly valid and in accordance with law as laid down by Hon'ble this Court in the case of Daldapat Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (32) LCD 365 wherein paragarph no.11 held as under :-
"The case laws cited by the counsel for the petitioner do not come to the rescue of the petitioner, as in the case of Amit Narain Rai (supra), it was found that there was no pleading nor any evidence shown or adduced to support the case. In the case of Mahendra Pal (supra), it was held that narrow margin itself cannot be a ground for recounting of votes, but it was emphasized that such allegations must not be clearly made but also proved by cogent evidence. "
So, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Shri K. K. Shukla, learned State Counsel on the basis of the record available to him submits that the petitioner/Smt. Sarita does not choose to appear in the matter before the opposite party no.1, so the publication has been made in the daily newspaper Aaj dated 27.04.2013. In spite of the said publication, the petitioner does not appear to put forward her version before the opposite party no.1. Thus, keeping in view the said facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that no adequate opportunity has been afforded to him prior to passing of the impugned order is not correct, rather contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of recounting of the votes, the position of law has now been crystallized by the Supreme Court in a large number of decisions. In the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2117, the Supreme Court held as under:
(1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;
(2) That before inspection is allowed the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts;
(3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount;
(4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties;
(5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials."
In Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3230, the Supreme Court after analyzing various judgments, held that a recount of votes could be ordered only on rare occasions and on specific allegation raised in the election petition to the effect that an illegality or irregularity was committed while counting and that the election petitioner who seeks recounting of the votes, should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of the valid votes or improper rejection of the valid votes and if the Court was satisfied about these allegations only then the Court could order recounting of the votes. The Supreme Court observed that the secrecy of the ballot was sacrosanct in a democratic process of the election and that it cannot be disturbed on mere allegation of illegality or irregularity in the counting of votes. The Supreme Court further observed that the election petitioner must prove that the purity of elections was tarnished and that the result of the election was materially affected which could only be cured by the recounting of the votes.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimhan, (2006) 2 SCC 300, held that an order for recounting should not be made as a matter of course, unless there was clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner.
In P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others, (1989) 1 SCC 526, the Supreme Court held as under:
"13. Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hindsight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order of recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes."
In Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others, (2010) 1 SCC 466, the Supreme Court held as under:
"Before examining the merits of the issues raised on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re-count of ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting of votes are made out. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballots and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases.
It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements viz. (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be, prima facie, satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. Broadly stated, material facts are primary or basis facts which have to be pleaded by the election petitioner to prove his cause of action and by the defendant to prove his defence. But, as to what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down."
A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Adhar Singh Vs. District Judge, Ghazipur and others, 1985 ACJ 196 held :-
"Applying the principle with regard to inspection of ballot papers enunciated by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act to an election petition dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that before an authority hearing the election petition under the said can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must Co-exist:
(1) that the petitioner for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the respondent is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and (2) that authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of any specifications with regard to the ground on which the election of the respondent is being questioned together with summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground, it is not open to the authority dealing with an application under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, either to look into or direct inspection of ballot papers merely on the ground that it feels that it would be in the interest of justice to look into or permit inspection of the ballot papers. In the context, such satisfaction has necessarily to be based on specific averments made in and the materials indicates in the election petition which could, parima facie, satisfy the authority about the existence of the ground on which the election is sought to be questioned."
In addition to the said facts, the Rule 104 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) provide the procedure for counting of the votes. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:
"104. Procedure at the counting.- On the date and at the time and place appointed under Rule 101, Nirvachan Adhikari shall proceed as follows:
(a) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall satisfy himself that all the ballot boxes used at the poll and which are to be counted at that place have been received and accounted for;
(b) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall then allow the candidates and their Nirvachan Abhikartas and Ganana Abhikartas present at the counting an opportunity to inspect the ballot boxes and their seals for satisfying themselves that they are in order;
(c) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall also satisfy himself that none of the boxes has in fact been tampered with. If any ballot box is found by him to have been tampered with or destroyed or lost, the Nirvachan Adhikari shall not proceed with the counting of votes and the provisions of Rule 100 shall apply.
(d) If the Nirvachan Adhikari is satisfied that all such ballot boxes which are to be counted at such place have been received and are in order, he shall take up the counting of ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes. All the ballot boxes used at a polling place shall be opened, and the counting of the ballot papers found in those boxes proceeded with, in accordance with the instructions of the State Election Commission, at the same time;
(e) An account of the ballot papers found in the boxes of the polling place shall be recorded in a statement in the form specified by the State Election Commission;
(f) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall allow the candidates, their Nirvachan Abhikartas and Ganana Abhikartas, who may be present, reasonable opportunity to inspect all ballot papers which in the opinion of the Nirvachan Adhikari are liable to be rejected, but shall not allow them to handle those or any other ballot papers. The Nirvachan Adhikari shall on every ballot paper, which is rejected, endorse rejection thereon in Hindi. If any candidate or his Nirvachan Abhikarta questions the correctness of the rejection of any ballot paper, the Nirvachan Adhikari shall also record briefly on such ballot paper grounds for his rejection;
(g) After the counting of all ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes of the polling place has been completed the Nirvachan Adhikari shall cause all such ballot papers to be kept in a separate packet on which shall be indicates such particulars as will indentify the name of the Gram Panchayat to which ballot papers relate."
Clause (d) of Rule 104 of the Rules of 1994 provides that the counting of the ballot papers shall be proceeded with in accordance with the instructions of the State Election Commission. Clause (e) of Rule 104 of the Rules of 1994 provides that the account of the ballot papers shall be recorded in a statement in the form specified by the State Election Commission.
Rule 107 provides that the Election Officer will prepare and certify an election return in the specified form. Rule 109 provides declaration of the result. Rule 111 provides that after the results are declared will forward the election return to the Assistant District Election Officer for safe custody as well as safe custody of the packets of ballot papers and all other papers relating to the election. Rule 112 provides that the ballot papers whether valid, rejected or tendered and marked copy of the electoral roll shall not be inspected by any person or authority except under the order of a competent court and all other papers relating to election shall be opened to public inspection upon payment of prescribed fees.
As per Clause(d) of Rule 104 of the Rules of 1994, the State Election Commission has issued the instructions, which is contained in the booklet published in the year 2010. Under Clause-19 of the instructions, the invalid votes would be recorded in form no.4 and 5. Under Clause 21, separate bundles of valid votes would be made for each candidate and doubtful ballot papers would also be kept in a separate bundle, which would be recorded in form no.4. Under Clause 22, the number of votes would be recorded in form no.5 to 7. Under Clause 23, the Election Officer upon receipt of various bundles of valid votes and doubtful votes, the same would be cross-checked by the Election Officer and any discrepancy found would be recorded by making necessary correction in form no.4 and would also record a brief note in form no.4. Under Clause 29, the Election Officer will record the number of votes of each candidate in form no.5, 6, 8 or 10 as the case may be including valid and invalid votes and will also give the total number of the votes polled for each candidate. While recording the entries in form no.5, 6, 8 or 10, the Election Officer will compare the polled votes with the other forms. Clause 31 indicates that the total number of votes for each candidate would be recorded in form no.7 and that after the declaration of the results form no.5 to 12 would be stamped and shall be handed over to the Assistant District Election Officer.
The Election Commission has also prescribed various forms. For the purpose of this case, form no.4, 6 and 7 are relevant. Form no.4 records the number and name of the polling booth, total number of bundles and total number of ballot papers. Form no.4 also indicates the name of the candidates and number of valid bundles of votes and number of valid votes against their names. Form no.4 also indicates that the number of doubtful ballot papers and invalid ballot papers has to be recorded.
Form no.6 indicates the names of the candidates, their election symbol and the total number of valid votes against their names. Form no.6 also records the total number of valid votes, total number of invalid votes and total number of votes polled.
Form no.7 records the name of the candidates, their election symbol, valid votes against their names booth wise and total number of valid votes. Form no.7 also records total number of valid votes, total number of invalid votes, total number of votes polled.
In the light of Rule 104 of the Rules of 1994 read with the instructions issued by the State Election Commission and the forms prescribed therein, it is apparently clear that valid votes of each polling booth and the total number of votes polled in that booth as well as doubtful and invalid votes are to be recorded in form no.4. Similarly, in form no.6 valid votes as well as symbol of the candidate has to be recorded and total number of valid votes and invalid votes. Form no.7 records all the facts which are recorded in form no.4 and 6. It is clear that without form no.4 and 6, the details of the candidates, the number of votes polled, the number of valid votes polled in favour of the candidate, the total number of invalid votes etc. cannot be recorded in form no.7.
The procedure envisaged under Rule 104 read with the instructions issued by the State Election Commission are mandatory in nature. Clause (e) of Rule 104 of the Rules of 1994 clearly states that account of the ballot papers found in the boxes of the polling place shall be recorded in a statement in the form specified by the State Election Commission. The word "shall" indicates the mandatory nature of the details to be recorded in various forms prescribed by the State Election Commission. "
Now reverting to the undisputed facts of the present case, opposite party no.2 moved an application for recounting of the votes, the facts and grounds taken by her therein the same is as under :-
"न्यायहित में पुनर्मतगणना हेतु आदेश पारित करने के पश्चात ही याचिका की अन्य सुनवाई की जावे |"
And taking into consideration the said application, opposite party no.1 by order dated 30.01.2014 allowed for recounting of the votes in view of the following observations quoted as under :-
"अतः मै इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचता हूँ कि याची का प्रार्थना पत्र वास्ते पुनर्मतगणना स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है जबकि प्रतिवादी द्वारा बार बार मौका देने पर भी अपना साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत न करने के बाद याची को पुनर्मतगणना प्रार्थना पत्र को निस्तारण किये जाने पर बल मिलता है । किन्तु माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 15.03.2013 द्वारा ३ माह के अंदर निस्तारण का समय दिया था जो काफी पहले ही समाप्त हो चूका है |"
Keeping in view the said facts, the core question which to be decided in the present case, whether the action on the part of the opposite party no.1 thereby passing the order for recounting of the votes on the basis of the averments made in the application for recounting is a valid exercise or not.
As per the settled proposition of law in respect of the recounting of the votes which has been stated herein above, in nutshell, it can be said that the order for recounting of the votes can be passed on the following conditions :-
"(i) a prima facie case;
(ii) pleading of material facts stating irregularities in counting of votes ;
(iii) a roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made while directing recounting of votes ; and
(iv) an objection to the said effect has been taken recourse to."
Onus lie upon the person who challenges the election of a returned candidate. One of the ground for challenge of an election seeking recounting is irregularity in counting of votes which can justify re-counting. To demonstrate any irregularity at the time of counting, pleading is necessary to be made in the petition. However, as stated above, the opposite party no.2 in her application for recounting of the votes has only stated that in "न्यायहित" recounting is necessary. The said pleadings are not sufficient, rather on the said pleadings, it is crystal clear that the election petitioner/opposite party no.2 failed to demonstrate any irregularity in the application for recounting, rather the pleadings on the said issue in her application are virtually silent and in any case extremely vague and cryptic.
It is well settled that the pleadings play significant role in a case of challenge to an election. It is true that there may be some discrepancy in respect to number of votes but that by itself cannot be a ground to issue a direction for recounting in the absence of any pleading of material facts showing any irregularity which is held to be one of the essential condition. (See Gursewak Singh vs. Avtar Singh and others 2006 (4) SCC 542 and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others (2004) 6 SCC 331.
In the instant matter as per parameters in regard to recounting of the votes, reasoning given by the opposite party no.1 for recounting of the votes by the impugned order does not satisfy the conditions which are necessary for recounting of the votes, so prior to passing the order of recounting, pre-requisite conditions as set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court/this Court are to be fulfilled because in the garb of recounting, secrecy of ballots cannot be permitted to be breached, as it is sacrosanct. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. Election Tribunal/opposite party no.1 is directed to decide the election petition preferably within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order subject to full cooperation being extended by the parties.
Order Date :-05.05.2014 Mahesh