Election petition pleadings, ballot validity and recrimination rules controlled inspection, recount objections and the winning candidate's claim.

Adequate material facts in an election petition were held sufficient for inspection of rejected ballot papers where the petition identified the booth, table, number of ballots and ground of rejection, even though serial numbers were unavailable because counting agents were not allowed to note them. Ballot papers from booth No. 10 lacking the Presiding Officer's signature were treated as valid because the omission resulted from the officer's absence and fell within the proviso protecting defects caused by that failure. In a composite petition seeking both voidance and a declaration that the petitioner was duly elected, the returned candidate could not challenge the alternative claim without filing recrimination under Section 97; the disputed ballots were counted and the petitioner's majority was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the election petition contained adequate material facts to justify inspection of the rejected ballot papers; (ii) whether the 74 ballot papers from booth No. 10 were liable to be rejected for want of the Presiding Officer's signature or were protected by the proviso to the counting rules; (iii) whether, in the absence of a recrimination petition under Section 97, the returned candidate could seek recount or challenge the alternative claim of the election petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the election petition contained adequate material facts to justify inspection of the rejected ballot papers.

Analysis: The petition identified the booth, table number, number of ballot papers and the precise ground of rejection. Although serial numbers were not supplied, the evidence showed that the counting agents were not permitted to note them down and that the particulars were not available to the election petitioner. In an election petition, the requirement is a concise statement of material facts under Section 83, not the full detail demanded in corrupt practice cases. On that basis, the pleading was sufficient to warrant inspection.

Conclusion: The pleading was adequate and inspection was properly directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the 74 ballot papers from booth No. 10 were liable to be rejected for want of the Presiding Officer's signature or were protected by the proviso to the counting rules.

Analysis: The ballot papers were found to be genuine ballot papers used at the booth and not spurious. They lacked the Presiding Officer's signature, but the evidence established that the Presiding Officer was absent from the polling station for a material period and that ballot papers were issued during that absence. Rule 38 required the signature of the Presiding Officer before issue, and Rule 56 permitted rejection for the specified defect. However, the proviso prevented rejection where the defect was caused by the failure of the Presiding Officer. On the facts proved, the omission fell within that proviso.

Conclusion: The ballot papers were not liable to rejection and were rightly counted in favour of the election petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether, in the absence of a recrimination petition under Section 97, the returned candidate could seek recount or challenge the alternative claim of the election petitioner.

Analysis: The election petition sought not only to void the returned candidate's election but also a declaration that the petitioner himself was duly elected. In such a composite petition, Section 97 requires the returned candidate to file a recrimination notice before attacking the alternative claim. The returned candidate had not complied with that requirement. The statutory scheme treated recrimination as a jurisdictional precondition to contest the petitioner's alternative claim, and equity could not override the Act.

Conclusion: In the absence of recrimination, the returned candidate was precluded from challenging the petitioner's claim to be duly elected on the basis of any further rejected ballot papers.

Final Conclusion: The election petition was allowed on the basis that the disputed ballot papers were wrongly rejected, the petitioner was found to have secured the majority of valid votes, and the returned candidate's challenge failed for want of statutory compliance with recrimination requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: In a composite election petition seeking both voidance of the returned candidate's election and a declaration that the petitioner is duly elected, the returned candidate cannot dispute the alternative claim without complying with the statutory requirement of recrimination, and ballot papers wrongly rejected for a Presiding Officer's failure to sign them must be counted under the proviso to the counting rule.

---