MARKIO TADO versus TAKAM SORANG & ORS.

MARKIO TADO versus TAKAM SORANG & ORS.

Since the ground of double voting/impersonation was not pleaded in the election petition, nor issue framed, and no material facts or evidence supported those allegations, the Single Judge erred in allowing the application for inspection of election papers. The discretion to order inspection must be exercised sparingly and not to facilitate fishing inquiries. The order of High Court is unsustainable and is quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Markio Tado; First Respondent: Takam Sorang; Respondents: Other respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Single Judge of Gauhati High Court Allowing Interlocutory Application in Election Petition
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Booth Capturing, Double Voting, Improper Reception of Votes, Pleadings in Election Petition, Inspection of Election Papers
Election Law Corrupt Practices Booth Capturing Double Voting Improper Reception of Votes Pleadings in Election Petition Inspection of Election Papers

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Markio Tado

Appellant

Takam Sorang

First Respondent

Other respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Single Judge of Gauhati High Court Allowing Interlocutory Application in Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations of double voting and impersonation not pleaded in the election petition can be brought by application at a later stage
  2. 2 Whether the order allowing inspection of voters' counterfoils was proper under law
  3. 3 Difference between booth capturing and improper reception of votes as grounds for declaring election void

Ratio Decidendi

Since the ground of double voting/impersonation was not pleaded in the election petition, nor issue framed, and no material facts or evidence supported those allegations, the Single Judge erred in allowing the application for inspection of election papers. The discretion to order inspection must be exercised sparingly and not to facilitate fishing inquiries. The order of High Court is unsustainable and is quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 14.09.2010 of Gauhati High Court in Misc. Case (E.P.) No.05(AP)/2010 in Election Petition No.01 (AP)/2009 is quashed and set aside.
  • Misc. Case (E.P.) No.05(AP)/2010 is dismissed.