Chandigarh mayoral poll results upheld by High Court

Chandigarh, November 11

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition challenging the mayoral polls. The petition was filed by Anju Katyal of the Aam Aadmi Party and two others councillors for declaring the results for Chandigarh Mayor’s post illegal. Directions were also sought to hold fresh elections to the Mayor’s post.

In their plea, Katyal, Prem Lata and Ram Chander Yadav had submitted AAP secured 14 seats and became the largest party in the elections. But the result did not go well with the BJP, in “power in MC for the last elections”. Upon counting of all 28 votes polled, eight were kept out for ‘defects’.

“AAP clearly won with a margin of two votes, 11 votes falling into kitty of petitioner-Katyal and nine to BJP candidate,” the petitioners added.

But the presiding officer and the prescribed authority-cum-Divisional Commissioner arbitrarily reconsidered the eight votes from the cancelled/rejected lot and declared a torn/mutilated voter slip cast to a BJP candidate as good for counting.

The petitioners added the final tally headed for a tie with 14 votes each, even after counting the defective/torn voter slip cast. The presiding officer, himself an elected BJP councillor, started playing otherwise by picking one ballot slip/vote cast in the petitioner’s favour to cite a mark on its rear without showing it. The respondents declared the vote/ballot slip in the petitioner’s favour as ‘cancelled’. The BJP candidate was suddenly declared elected with 14-13 margin to utmost shock and surprise of petitioner, other members of the House and the public at large, it was added.

The official respondent represented by UT senior standing counsel took the categorical stand that the representation/objection attached with the petition was never received. Senior advocate Chetan Mittal with advocate Mayank Aggarwal on the Mayor’s behalf contended the representation was forged and fabricated.

The court, during the course of hearing, asked the parties to assist the Bench as to whether a torn vote could be rejected as per MC rules. Mittal pointed out rule 6(10) of the of MC rules provided for vote’s rejection in case of a mark on the ballot paper. The rule did not talk about the rejection of torn vote. Marking disclosed the voter’s identity, but a torn vote did not. Thereafter, the case was reserved on October 31 and the judgment was pronounced today. The detailed order was yet to be uploaded.