JIBONTARA GHATOWAR versus SARBANANDA SONOWAL AND ORS.

JIBONTARA GHATOWAR versus SARBANANDA SONOWAL AND ORS.

Rejection of 824 votes was contrary to statutory provisions and Supreme Court law; returning officer failed in duty per Rule 63. Grounds and evidence in pleadings warranted recount. High Court erred in denying recount; recount must be permitted, and result given effect to.

Parties
Appellant: Jibontara Ghatowar; Respondent No.1: Sarbananda Sonowal; Respondent No.2: Hareshwar Changmai; Respondent No.3: Joy Chandra Nagbanshi; Respondent No.4: Biren Borah; Respondent No.5: Lukua Changmai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 31.5.2002 in E.p. No. 4 of 2001
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Recount of Votes, Improper Rejection of Ballot Papers, Statutory Duty of Returning Officer, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
Election Law Recount of Votes Improper Rejection of Ballot Papers Statutory Duty of Returning Officer Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jibontara Ghatowar

Appellant

Sarbananda Sonowal

Respondent No.1

Hareshwar Changmai

Respondent No.2

Joy Chandra Nagbanshi

Respondent No.3

Biren Borah

Respondent No.4

Lukua Changmai

Respondent No.5

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 31.5.2002 in E.p. No. 4 of 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of 824 votes was justified under Rules 38 and 56 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
  2. 2 Whether returning officer fulfilled statutory obligation under Rule 63 for recount applications
  3. 3 Whether circumstances warranted recount and rescrutiny of ballots

Ratio Decidendi

Rejection of 824 votes was contrary to statutory provisions and Supreme Court law; returning officer failed in duty per Rule 63. Grounds and evidence in pleadings warranted recount. High Court erred in denying recount; recount must be permitted, and result given effect to.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment set aside
  • Case remanded to High Court for recount