Markio Tado Vs. Takam
Sorang & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No.
1539 of 2012 @ SLP No. 30410 of 2010]
J U D G E M E N T
H.L. Gokhale J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
This
appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2010 passed by a
Learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in Misc. Case (E.P.) No. 05(AP)/2010
in Election Petition No. 01(AP)/2009 whereby the High Court has allowed the Interlocutory
application filed by the first respondent herein, and directed the District Returning
Officer, Distt. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh to produce the record of Register
of voters' counterfoils (in Form 17A) of 38 polling stations of 13-Itanagar
(ST) Assembly Constituency in that State. 2 Brief facts leading to this appeal
are as follows:-
3.
The
appellant and the respondent No. 1 herein contested the election to the Arunachal
Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency held in October
2009, wherein the appellant was declared elected, defeating his nearest rival
respondent No. 1, by 2713 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition No. 01/2009
to challenge the election of the appellant on the ground of corrupt practice of
booth capturing. This 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency consists of two circles
viz. (i) Tali, and (ii) Pipsorang. Each of the circles was having 10 polling
stations. The voting had taken place on 13.10.2009.
It was alleged that
on two polling stations viz. (i) 7-Roing and (ii) 2-Ruhi from circle Tali, boxes
(containing EVMs) were illegally removed by the party workers of the appellant,
and votes in favour of the appellant were cast by a single hand. The common voters
were not allowed to exercise their voting rights as they were threatened for
their lives by the miscreants of the appellant. It was claimed that polling
agents of the first respondent at these two polling stations jointly reported about
the happenings in these polling stations on 15.10.2009 to the Assistant Returning
Officer.
It was alleged that such
incidents also took place on 6 more polling stations. In para 9 of the
petition, it was stated that, it was necessary to bring the EVMs and counter
foils of Form 17A (register of voters) of these 8-polling stations (mentioned
in para-7 of the petition) for forensic test and other examination etc. before
the Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication of the case. It was stated that the
votes received by the appellant in these 8 polling stations were 3763, and if
they were deleted from the votes of appellant, the first respondent would be
declared as elected.
It was prayed that the
records of (i) register of voters counterfoils (Form 17-A) of these 8 polling
stations described in paragraph 7 of the petition, (ii) EVMs of these 8 polling
stations, and (iii) records relating to 20 Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency be
called, and appellant be directed to show cause as to why those votes cast by
booth capturing in 8 polling stations in favour of the appellant should not be
declared as illegal, and the election order dated 22.10.2009 be not declared as
void, and why the respondent No. 1 should not be declared as elected candidate.
4.
The
appellant contested this petition by filing a Written Statement. He submitted
that no unfair means were employed by him, or by his agents, and stated that
the allegation of illegal practice adopted in 8 polling stations is completely
false. He submitted that the election was conducted peacefully with free and
fair means. The polling stations were guarded by police personnel who carried arms
and ammunitions. There was no booth capturing or criminal intimidation at all. EVMs
and voters' counterfoils were duly verified at the Receiving Centre, and there
was no need to call for any of these documents, nor was there any question to
declare the election void.
5.
The
learned Judge framed the necessary issues on 8th March, 2010 including as to whether
the EVMs were illegally removed, whether any election offence of booth capturing
and criminal intimidation was committed, whether the election was liable to be
declared void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
("Act of 1951" or the said Act for short) and whether the first respondent
was entitled to be declared as duly elected?
6.
Before
the evidence could start, the first respondent filed Interlocutory Application
No. 6/2010 in the said Election Petition on 29th March, 2010. In para 1 thereof
he submitted as follows:- "1. That your applicants beg to state and submit
that some thousand of voters of those 8 polling stations viz.
i.
Giba,
ii.
Tungmar,
iii.
15-Richik,
iv.
7-Roing,
v.
10-Yarda,
vi.
5-
Guchi,
vii.
8-Dotte,
viii.
2-Ruhi
of 20 Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency have double entry in different 38 polling
stations of 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency.
So far your applicant
knowledge is concerned about 80% of the voters of 20-(ST) Tali Assembly Constituency
from those 8 polling stations viz.
i.
6-
Giba,
ii.
4-Tugnmar,
iii.
15-Richik,
iv.
7-Roing,
v.
10-Yarda,
vi.
5-Guchi,
vii.
8-Dotte,
viii.
2-Ruhi
have cast their votes at 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency and not at
20-(ST) Tali Constituency."
Thereafter, he gave the
list of 38 polling stations of Itanagar constituency.
He claimed that the
total number of such voters who had their names in those 38 polling stations was
1304. He, therefore, prayed that the record of register of voters counterfoils
(Form 17-A) of the above 38 polling stations of 13- (ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency
from the District Returning Officer, Distt. Papum Pare be called.
7.
The
appellant opposed this application. The learned Single Judge noted the submissions
on behalf of the respondent No. 1. He also noted the submissions on behalf of the
appellant that there was no allegation of double enrollment, and no issue had
been framed in this respect in the election petition, and therefore the application
was liable to be dismissed. Having noted the submissions, the learned Single Judge
rejected the said application by his order dated 31.03.2010 observing "I
am of the considered view that calling of records as sought for by the
applicant is not justified at this stage."
8.
Thereafter,
the evidence was recorded. The first respondent went into the witness box on
4th April, 2010 and in his examination in chief, he stated that he had sent a fax
message to the Returning Officer of 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency on 15.10.2009
alleging the booth capturing of 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing polling stations. He stated
that he had complained about the booth capturing in 6 more polling stations and
produced copies of complaints. He stated that there was single handed voting in
favour of the appellant, and respondent's voters were threatened and not allowed
to cast their votes.
He further stated that
a large number of voters had double entries in the electoral roll of 20 Tali
(ST) as well as Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency. They had actually cast their
votes at 38 different polling stations of 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency,
and in their place votes were cast in Tali Constituency by the miscreants of
the appellant. The electoral rolls of the two constituencies were to be
exhibited. He further pointed out that a vote was cast against a dead person by
name Markio Tama from 2-Ruhi polling station and the death certificate of the
person concerned was produced.
9.
In
his cross examination on 9th June, 2010, the first respondent accepted that he had
not made any averments in the election petition regarding double enrollment of
the voters in the two Assembly Constituencies. He accepted that he was aware that
the final electoral rolls were published by the authorities concerned before
the election was held, prior to which the draft roll was published for
information of the voters concerned, and that he did not lodge any complaint before
the authorities concerned about the double enrollment in the two constituencies.
He explained it by stating that he did not know that such double enrollment had
taken place. He could not say who actually cast the vote for Markio Tama, who had
already expired. He accepted that he had appointed his polling agents for all
the polling stations.
He knew about the
duties of the polling agents which included raising objection in case of
detection of any impersonation during the polling time, before the Presiding
Officer concerned by filling up a prescribed form alongwith a fee of Rs. 2/-. He
stated that his polling agents were not allowed to enter into the polling
booths and the candidates appointed by the appellant acted as fake polling
agents for the first respondent. He however, accepted that he has not stated in
election petition that the candidates appointed by the opposite party had acted
as fake polling agents for him.
He further accepted
that his complaint to the Returning Officer did not mention all the 8 polling
stations. It mentioned only about 2 polling stations. He also accepted that he
did not mention the names of persons involved in booth capturing. The first respondent
had alleged that in two polling stations viz. Ruhi and Roing, booth capturing had
taken place which was on the basis that in Ruhi the first respondent got only 3
votes as against appellant getting 697 votes and in Roing he got only one vote
as against the appellant getting 1196 votes. On this aspect it was put to him that
there were two circles in this constituency viz. Tali and Pipsorang. The above
two polling stations were in Tali Circle.
The first respondent
accepted that the returned candidate secured no vote in 11-Vovia polling
station. He also accepted that the returned candidate secured only 7 7 votes in
13-Zara polling station, both falling in Pipsorang circle. Thereafter, he accepted
that "It may be correct that securing less vote by a candidate may be due to
his less attachment to the people of a particular area and it may also be the one
of the reasons for losing the election." The first respondent also accepted
that Micro Observers were appointed in all the polling stations and they were
provided with digital camera for their use as and when required during election
for all the purposes.
10.
It
was at that stage that the first respondent moved another application viz. Mis
Case No. 05(AP) of 2010 on 29th June, 2010. In that application he repeated
that some of the voters of the 8 polling stations mentioned earlier, had double
entries in different 38 polling stations of 13 Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency.
In para 2 he stated that 30% of voters of Tali Constituency from those 8
polling stations had cast their votes in Itanagar and not in Tali, and in their
place the double voting was effected on behalf of the appellant, and therefore
it was necessary to get the record of the voters' counterfoils (in Form 17A)
from the 38 polling stations under 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency.
The appellant opposed
this application. The counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a fishing
inquiry to improve the case. The learned Single Judge however observed: "This
allegation sounds to be new one, but when it is closely examined, it also comes
under the purview of booth capturing because votes by impersonation is one of the
modus operandi adopted towards accomplishment of securing votes by use of
illegal method or illegal resource".
11.
The
learned Judge referred to a judgment of this Court in Hari Ram Vs. Hira Singh
reported in AIR 1984 SC 396, that electoral rolls and counter foils should be called
sparingly and only when sufficient material is placed before the Court. He also
referred to a judgment of this Court in Fulena Singh Vs. Vijoy Kr. Sinha
reported in 2009(5) SCC 290 wherein it was held that inspection of register of
voters in Form 17-A would be permissible where a clear case is made out. The learned
Single Judge held that the official record would be the most reliable evidence
where there was impersonation, and thereafter passed the impugned order calling
for the record of registers of voters counterfoils in form 17A of 38 polling stations
of 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency which order is challenged in the present
appeal. Submissions on behalf of the rival parties
12.
Mr.
Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned
Judge of the High Court clearly erred in allowing the second application filed
by the first respondent for the simple reason that he was making a roving and
fishing inquiry. Mr. Giri submitted firstly that if the respondent No.1 was concerned
with the alleged double entries of the voters in the two constituencies, he ought
to have challenged the double enrollment when the draft rolls were published. Secondly,
this ground of impersonation and double voting was not raised in the election petition
at all. Then there were no particulars provided as to whether anybody had seen the
real voters not voting, and somebody else voting in their place.
Thirdly, he submitted
that the application made by respondent No.1 earlier having been rejected,
there could not be a second application for that very purpose. Besides,
impersonation or double voting would come in the category of `improper reception
of votes' which is a separate category of corrupt practice falling under Section
100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act of 1951. For invoking this ground one has to plead
that the election was materially affected by such improper reception of votes which
the first respondent had not done.
`Improper reception' is
different from `booth capturing' which is a separate corrupt practice under Section
123 (8) read with Section 135 A of the Act of 1951. The first respondent had
filed the election petition only on the ground of booth capturing and not on
the basis of improper reception of votes and he cannot be permitted to improve upon
it from stage to stage. The sanctity and secrecy of the electoral process was important
and the same could not be permitted to be violated.
13.
Mr.
Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent on the
other hand submitted that the first respondent had filed the election petition on
the ground of booth capturing, and double voting or impersonation could be
considered as facets of booth capturing. The learned Judge could not be faulted
for his order since impersonation is a link between the booth capturing and improper
reception. If purity of the election process is to be maintained, and if the
true result of the election is to be found out, the order which is impugned in
the petition was a necessary order. Consideration of the rival submission
14.
The
order impugned in the present appeal has been passed on the second application
in this behalf which was Misc. Case No. 05(AP)/2010 filed on 29th June, 2010
after the recording of the evidence of the first respondent. It is material to note
that in his evidence the first respondent did not dispute that he had not made any
averment in the election petition regarding double enrollment of some voters of
the two constituencies. He also accepted that one has to object to such double entries
when that draft electoral roll is published, but he explained his inaction in
this behalf by stating that he did not know that such double enrollment had
taken place.
With respect to
impersonation, he cited the instance of only one person, namely Markio Tama who
had expired, but he could not state as to who voted in his place. He accepted
that the polling agents have to object when such impersonation takes place, but
explained inaction of his polling agents by saying that his polling agents were
not allowed to enter into the polling booths and the candidates appointed by
the opposite party acted as fake polling agents for him. He however, accepted
that such plea was not taken in the election petition. He also accepted that
his complaint about double voting was only about 2 polling stations, and that
he did not mention all the 8 polling stations in his complaint. He had to accept
that he did not mention the names of persons involved in the booth capturing.
The first respondent
had emphasized the fact that in Ruhi he got only 3 votes as against appellant getting
697 votes. In Roing he got only one vote as against appellant getting 1196
votes. He further had to accept that there were two circles in Tali
constituency, namely, Tali and Pipsorang. Ruhi and Roing were falling in Tali
circle where appellant did get most of the votes. As against that in Pipsorang circle
the respondent No.1 got most of the votes.
Thus in Vovia polling
station, the appellant got no vote at all and if we see the pleadings we find that
the first 11 respondent got 365 votes. In Zara polling station, the appellant
got only 7 votes as against 335 votes of the first respondent. There are two
more noteworthy polling stations. Thus, in Keba polling station the first
respondent got 346 votes as against the appellant's one vote, and in Tedung
polling station the first respondent got 361 votes as against only 5 votes of
appellant. The first respondent had to accept that the securing of less votes
may be due to the less attachment of the candidate to the people of a
particular area, and may be one of the reasons to loose the election. He has
also accepted that there were micro observers in all the polling stations with digital
cameras.
15.
In
this Misc. Case No.05(AP)/2010 the first respondent once again prayed for
calling for the voters counterfoils in Form 17-A from 38 polling stations of Itanagar
Assembly Constituency. In para 2 of this application he now stated that 30% of
the voters' of Tali Constituency from 8 polling stations had cast their votes
in Itanagar, and in their place double voting was effected. Thus, in this second
application, the first respondent's grievance of such double voting came down
from 80% to 30%. The question is as to whether the learned Judge was right in
allowing this second application for getting this additional record on the
background of the material that had then come on the record.
16.
To
begin with, one must note that in an election petition, one has to plead the
material facts at the outset, and the failure to plead the same is fatal to the
election petition. For reference one may see the judgment of a bench of three judges
of this Court in Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi reported in [2001 (8) SCC
233]. Besides, no evidence can be led on a plea which is not raised in the pleadings
and no amount of evidence can cure the defect in the pleadings as held in para
7 of Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh reported in [2000 (8) SCC 191].
17.
(i)
In the present case the election petition filed by the first respondent made
the grievance of booth capturing which is a corrupt practice covered under Section
123 (8) of the Act of 1951. Committing a corrupt practice is a ground to declare
an election void under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act. Booth capturing is also
made an offence under Section 135 A of the Act, and the term `booth capturing' is
spelt out in the explanation to that section. (ii) Section 135 A alongwith the
Explanation reads as follows: 135A. Offence of booth capturing –
[(1)] Whoever commits
an offence of booth capturing shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which [shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and
with fine, and where such offence is committed by a person in the service of the
Government, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine. Explanation
- For the purpose of [this sub-section and section 20B], "booth
capturing" includes, among other things, all or any of the following
activities, namely:-
a. seizure of a polling
station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons making polling
authorities surrender the ballot papers or voting machines and doing of any
other act which affects the orderly conduct of elections;
b. taking possession of a
polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons and allowing
only his or their own supporters to exercise their right to vote and [prevent others
from free exercise of their right to vote];
c. [coercing or
intimidating or threatening directly or indirectly] any elector and preventing him
13 from going to the polling station or a place fixed for the poll to cast his
vote;
d. seizure of a place
for counting of votes by any person of persons, making the counting authorities
surrender the ballot papers or voting machines and the doing of anything which
affects the orderly counting of votes;
e. doing by any person in
the service of Government, of all or any of the aforesaid activities or aiding or
conniving at, any such activity in the furtherance of the prospects of the
election of a candidate. (2) An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be
cognizable.
18.
As
far as impersonation or double voting is concerned, such actions would amount to
improper reception of votes which is a separate ground for declaring an
election to be void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the said Act. This ground
was not pleaded in the petition, nor was any issue framed thereon for the trial.
As can be seen from the explanation to Section 135 A, the main element of booth
capturing is use of force or intimidation. As against that impersonation or double
voting involves cheating or deception. Thus, these two grounds deal with two
different aspects of corrupt practices. That being the position, the question
is as to whether the respondent No.1 could have been permitted to lead any
evidence in this behalf without raising the ground in this election petition. This
is particularly on the background that the earlier application I.A. No.6/2010
calling for the register of voters' counterfoils (Form 17-A) from the 38
polling stations of Itanagar had not been entertained at that stage under the
order dated 31.03.2010 which was prior to recording of evidence.
19.
The
evidence which had come on record clearly showed that the first respondent received
overwhelming votes in some polling stations, whereas the appellant received similarly
overwhelming votes in other polling stations. The statement of the first respondent
that the appellant had appointed fake polling agents for the first respondent
was a clear after thought, since if it was so, he would pleaded the same in the
election petition itself. He has not mentioned the names of the persons allegedly
involved in booth capturing.
Even with respect to impersonation,
the only instance pointed out was that of one Markio Tama, but it was not
stated in the petition or in evidence as to who voted in his place. It is thus obvious
that having failed to place any material with respect to either booth capturing
or impersonation, the first respondent was trying to make fishing and roving inquiry
to improve his case by calling for the record of the voters register from Itanagar
Constituency, in support of his grievance of double voting.
In the absence of any
evidence with respect to the persons who at the instance of the appellant
allegedly captured the booths or made double voting or impersonation in Tali
Constituency, no such inference could have been drawn against the appellant. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the second application
made by the first respondent.
20.
Besides,
the ground of improper reception requires a candidate to show as to how the election
in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected, in
view of the requirement of Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act of 1951. First respondent
has stated that there were some 1304 double entries of voters. The allegation of
respondent No.1 on evidence was only with respect to Roing and Ruhi polling
station. The votes received by the appellant in both these polling stations put
together come to 1873. The appellant has won with a margin of 2713 votes. That
being so the second application could not have been entertained even on that ground
in the absence of prima facie case that the result of the election had been
materially affected.
21.
The
learned Judge has referred to and relied upon the judgments of this Court in
Hari Ram Vs. Heera Singh (supra) and Fulena Singh Vs. Vijoy Kr. Sinha (also
supra) to hold that in a rare case an order of production of such record concerning
the voters register could be passed. Learned Judge however made no attempt to
apply the principles laid down in those cases to the facts of the present one,
as can be seen from the narration above. In Hari Ram, (which is a decision of three
judges) the situation was almost similar.
The High Court had passed
an interlocutory order directing the Returning Officer to produce the marked
electoral rolls for inspection, which was on the background that the first
respondent had won that election by a very small margin of 238 votes. In para 3
of the judgment, this Court accepted the contention on behalf of the appellant
as well founded that the High Court erred in allowing the prayers at an
interlocutory stage without examining whether proper foundation was laid for
inspection which would otherwise result in adversely affecting the secrecy and
sacrosanct nature of electoral process. In para 6 of Hari Ram, this Court
observed as follows:-
"6. To begin
with, the High Court seems to have been under the impression that the Court had
ample powers to direct production of any document Under Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In doing so with due deference, the High Court overlooked that
the Representation of People Act was a special Act and provisions of the Evidence
Act or the CPC would only apply where they are not excluded. Thus, at the very
outset, with due respect, the approach of the High Court was legally
incorrect......." In Hari Ram also there was a grievance that there were a
number of dead persons for whom votes were cast. No details and particulars
were given that votes were actually cast for dead persons. This Court held that
it was nothing but a fishing inquiry and it clearly violated the sanctity and secrecy
of the electoral process.
22.
(i)
Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 governs the production and
inspection of election papers. Sub-rule 1 thereof is relevant for our purpose
and it reads as follows:- "93. Production and inspection of election papers
- (1) While in the custody of the district election officer or, as the case may
be, the returning officer –
a. the packets of unused
ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto;
b. the packets of used ballot
papers whether valid, tendered or rejected;
c. the packets of the
counterfoils of used ballot papers;
d. the packets of the
marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained
under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and [(dd) the packets
containing registers of voters in form 17- A;]
e. the packets of the declaration
by electors and the attestation of their signatures; shall not be opened and
their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or
authority except under the order of a competent court."
17 (ii) Sub-rule (dd)
above has been added in this rule by notification dated 24.3.1992. Form 17-A mentioned
therein is related to Rule 49 (L) which is concerning the procedure about the
voting by voting machines. Sub-rule 1 (a) of Rule 49 (L) requires the polling officer
to record the electoral roll number of the elector as entered in the marked copy
of the electoral roll in a register of voters which is maintained in Form 17-A.
23.
This
rule (as it then stood) came to be construed by a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Ram Sewak Vs. H.K. Kidwai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1249. This Court
held in para 7 as follows:- "7. An order for inspection may not be granted
as a matter of course : having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the
ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection
provided two conditions are fulfilled : (i) that the petition for setting aside
an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the
petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied
that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between parties inspection
of the ballot papers is necessary.
But an order for inspection
of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition
not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas.
The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments
of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly,
if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a more allegation that the
petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal
or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for
inspection."
The judgment in Ram
Sewak has been followed all through out, and the proposition with respect to inspection
have been repeated in a catena of decisions of this Court, namely that inspection
of ballot papers and counterfoils should be allowed very sparingly, and only when
it is absolutely essential to determine the issue. As held by this Court in
Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind reported in AIR 1975 SC 2117, discretion conferred on
the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant
to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the
election to be void.
24.
The
impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Fulena Singh (supra).
In that matter also there was an allegation of double voting, and the
inspection of register of voters in Form 17-A was sought. In para 13 of the
judgment the Court noted the submission on behalf of the respondent that the
registers of voters in Form 17-A do not enjoy the same immunity as that of the other
papers mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) and (e) of Rule 93 (1). This Court did not
accept that submission, and held that inspection of election papers mentioned
in detail in the entire Rule 93 (1) is not a matter of course unless a clear
case is made out. The Court, therefore, disallowed the inspection of register
of voters in Form 17-A. Thus, the reliance on Fulena Singh (supra) in the
impugned judgment was also wholly erroneous
25.
This
being the position, in our view the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
illegal and unsustainable. We are, therefore, required to set-aside the same.
26.
Accordingly,
we pass the following order:- (i) The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
dated 14.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in Misc.
Case (E.P.) No.05(AP)/2010 in Election Petition No.01(AP)/2009 is hereby quashed
and set- aside. (ii) The Misc. Case (E.P.) No.05 (AP)/2010 is hereby dismissed.
(iii) Parties will bear their own costs.
........................................J.
(Deepak Verma)
........................................J.
(H.L. Gokhale)
New
Delhi
February
2, 2012
Back
