Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J
1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the order passed by Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar dated 16.12.2023 passed in Election Petition No.02145 of 2021 directing for recounting of votes.
2. The petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mehdupar, Block Satha, District Sant Kabir Nagar in the election held on 21.04.2021 and result being declared on 02.05.2021, securing 524 votes while respondent No.2 Ferzana lost election securing 522 votes.
3. Respondent No.2 questioned the election of the petitioner by moving application under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1947”) before respondent No.1 on the ground that total number of votes polled was 1868 while counting had taken place for only 1819 votes and 49 votes were not counted.
4. In the election petition it was averred that in Booth No.1, which consists of Ward Nos.1, 2 and 3, total number of votes polled were 384 while only 383 votes have been counted. In Booth No.2, which consists of Ward Nos.4, 5 and 6, total number of votes polled were 429 and only 381 votes were counted. Similarly, in Booth No.3, which consists of Ward Nos.7, 8 & 9, total number of votes polled were 366 and 366 votes were counted while in Booth No.4, which consists of Ward Nos.10, 11 & 12, total number of votes polled were 363 and the same number was counted, while Booth No.5, which consisted of Ward Nos.13, 14 & 15, total number of votes polled were 326 and the same number was counted.
5. The allegation is in regard to 49 votes, which remained uncounted, though polled in two Booths being Booth Nos.1 & 2, for which prayer for recounting has been made.
6. Paragraphs No.7, 8, 9 and 10 of the application of the election petitioner spells out the grounds for filing the same before Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority on 07.04.2022 framed following issues :
“1. क्या वाद पत्र में वर्णित अभिकथनों के आधार पर याची ग्राम पंचायत / न्याय पंचायत मेंहदूपार विकास खण्ड सांथा के ग्राम पंचायत मेंहदूपार के निर्वाचन परिणाम दिनांक 02.05.2021 को शून्य एवं अवैध मानकर याची को यथाविधि निर्वाचित घोषित होने का अधिकार है?
2. क्या वाद पत्र में वर्णित अभिकथनों के आधार पर उपर वर्णित ग्राम पंचायत का पुनर्मतगणना करा पाने का अधिकारी है?
3. क्या वाद पत्र में वर्णित कथनों के आधार पर याची किसी अन्य अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?
4. क्या याचिका वाद आवश्यक शुल्क 1994 के रूल्स के अनुसार चुनाव याचिका में जमा प्रतिभूति राशि कम व अपर्याप्त है?
5. क्या याचिका वाद पोषणीय है?
6. क्या याचिका वाद में पक्षकारों के कुसंयोजन का दोष है?
7. क्या याचिका वाद नियमानुसार प्रमाणित है?
8. क्या याचिका वाद टाईम बार्ड है?
9. क्या दावा वादीगण अतिविलम्बित है?
10. क्या वादीगण अन्य अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी है?”
7. The Prescribed Authority on 01.02.2023 directed for recounting of votes. The said order was challenged before this Court through Writ-C No.5784 of 2023, and the said order was set aside by this Court on 21.02.2023 and the matter was remitted back to pass order afresh. Post remand, the Prescribed Authority had proceeded to decide Issue Nos.2 to 10, framed earlier. Issue No.2 is in regard to whether any ground exist in the election petition for recounting of votes.
8. By an interim order, the Prescribed Authority on 16.12.2023 while deciding issue No.2 with other issues except issue No.1, directed for recounting of votes. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner (Returned Candidate) has filed the present writ petition.
9. Sri K.R.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that election petitioner had not made material disclosure in the election petition alleging that those 49 votes, which were removed at the time of counting were polled in her favour and not counting them would materially affect the result of the election. According to him, Section 12-C(1)(b)(ii) of Act of 1947 would only be attracted once the pleadings are clear in the election petition. According to him, the election petitioner has not alleged the number of valid votes she has received. The only pleading made is that the election petitioner has received majority of valid votes. As the objections were raised at the time of counting by election petitioner, twice recounting was done but the result remained the same.
10. He then contended that the Prescribed Authority while deciding issue No.2 failed to consider the allegations in the election petition and the evidence led in support of the petition. According to him, once 49 ballot papers were removed from counting, then those ballot papers could not be recovered in recounting process. The order passed for recounting, according to him, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
11. Learned counsel then submitted that the procedure for filing election petition under Section 12-C of Act of 1947 has been given in Rule 3 of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1994”). According to him, Rule 3(1) provides for filing of election petition specifying the ground or grounds on which election is questioned and shall contain a summary of circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground. According to him, Section 12-C(1) of Act of 1947 has to be read with Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 where a disclosure as to the grounds on which the election petition has been filed is to be made by the election petitioner disclosing the material facts containing summary of circumstances.
12. According to petitioner’s counsel, the provision and procedure for filing and conducting election petition under Act of 1947 is the same as given under Section 83 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Ram Adhar Singh vs. The District Judge, Ghazipur & others 1985 AWC 246 (FB). Relevant paras 17, 18 and 19 of the judgments are extracted hereasunder :
“17. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that whereas Section 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act requires that the election petition presented under that Act must give out a concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies, the requirement under Rub 24 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Kaj Act, in this regard is that the election petition presented under Section 12-C of the Act is merely to contain the grounds together with the summary of circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds. He urged that there is a substantial difference between requiring a Petitioner to make a concise statement of material facts on which he seeks to rely and in requiring a person to specify in the petition the summary of circumstances providing a justification for questioning the election on a particular ground. Moreover, Section 12-C(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act countenances framing of a rule permitting summary hearing and disposal of an election petition under Section 12-C(1) of the Act, the State Government has, vide Clause (2) of proviso (1) to Rule 25(1) stipulated that it shall not be necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer, (the authority competent to deal with an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act) to record the evidence in full and that he may maintain only a memorandum of evidence produced by the parties before him. This, according to the learned Counsel, indicates that the requirement in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act with regard to contents of an election petition and the procedure for its trial is very much less formal and stringent than the corresponding provision concerning pleadings and procedure for trial of an election petition under the Representation of the Peoples Act, He, therefore, contends that it would, under the circumstances, not be apt to fetter the discretion of an authority hearing an election petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act with regard to perusal and inspection of ballot papers by the same strict conditions for the purpose laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to cases arising under the Representation of the People Act.
18. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel. As already explained the Supreme Court has, in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act, spelt out the condition that all the courts dealing with an election petition should not exercise its discretion to permit inspection of ballot papers unless the petition contains an adequate statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies in support of his case (viz. that the petition meets the requirements of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of an election petition) for the reason that under the Act, it is a matter of utmost importance to maintain the secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and which should not be lightly allowed to be violated on vague and indefinite allegations. This reason applies equally to an election held under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which too cherishes secrecy of ballot to the same extent. Viewed from this angle, it becomes evident that the amplitude and purpose of the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act that the election petition must contain a concise statements of material facts on which the Petitioner relies and that of Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to the effect that an application under Section 12-C(1) of the Act must specify the grounds on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned as also a summary of circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds, is the same, viz. that the court or the authority dealing with an election petition under the respective enactments, should not countenance or proceed to investigate into any ground taken in the election petition unless the ground as well as the material in support of such ground have been adequately disclosed in the petition. Neither of the two enactments countenances the court or the authority to permit the election Petitioner to make or indulge into making of a roving enquiry with a view to fish out material for declaring an election void; and it is this weighty factor which impels the court or the authority not to look into or permit inspection of ballot papers unless the foundation for the purpose has been properly laid in the petition by specifying the ground and the material or the circumstances in support of such ground. Viewed in this light, the provisions contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules permitting the summary hearing of an application under Section 12-C(1) of the Act and authorising the Sub-Divisional Officer to, instead of recording evidence in full, merely maintain a memorandum thereof, has no bearing on the question regarding circumstances in which the ballot papers can either be looked into or permitted to be inspected in proceedings under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
19. Applying the principle with regard to inspection of ballot papers enunciated by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act to an election petition dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that before an authority hearing the election petition under the said Act can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exist:
(1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and
(2) the authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties.
It, therefore, follows that in the absence of any specification with regard to the ground on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned together with summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on I such ground, it is not open to the authority dealing with an application under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, either to look into or direct inspection of ballot papers merely on the ground that it feels that it would be in the interest of justice to look into or permit inspection of the ballot papers. In the context, such satisfaction has necessarily to be based on specific averments made in and the materials indicated in the election petition which could, prima facie, satisfy the authority about the existence of the ground on which the election is sought, to be questioned.”
13. Reliance has also been placed upon decision of Constitution Bench of Apex Court rendered in Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, AIR 1964 SC 1249. Relevant paras 6, 7 & 8 are extracted hereasunder :
“6. An election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case. If such material facts are set out the Tribunal has undoubtedly the power to direct discovery and inspection of documents with which a civil court is invested under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. But the power which the civil court may exercise in the trial of suits is confined to the narrow limits of O. 11, Code of Civil Procedure. Inspection of documents under O. 11, Code of Civil Procedure may be ordered under rule 15, of documents which are referred to in the pleadings or particulars as disclosed in the affidavit of documents of the other party, and under rule 18(2) of other documents in the possession or power of the other party. The Returning Officer is not a party to an election petition, and an order for production of the ballot papers cannot be made under O. 11 Code of Civil Procedure. But the Election Tribunal is not on that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper case where the interests of justice demand it, the Tribunal may call upon the Returning Officer to produce the ballot papers and may permit inspection by the parties before it of the ballot papers. That power is clearly implicit in Sections 100(1)(d)(iii), 101, 102 and rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. This power to order inspection of the ballot papers which is apart from O. 11 Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised, subject to the statutory restrictions about the secrecy of the ballot paper prescribed by 94 and 128(1).
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.
8. It must be remembered that the rules framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, set up an elaborate machinery relating to the stage of counting of votes by the Returning Officer, and provide ample opportunity to the candidate who has contested the election or his agents to remain present and to keep an eye on any improper action which may be taken by the Returning Officer. Rule 53 provides for the admission only certain classes of persons to the place fixed for counting and amongst such persons are expressly included candidates, their election agents and counting agents, who may watch the counting subject to the directions which the returning officer may give. Rule 55 deals with the procedure for scrutiny and opening of ballot boxes. The Returning Officer has to satisfy himself that "none of the ballot boxes has in fact been tampered with" and before any ballot box is opened at the counting table, the counting agents present at that table are allowed to inspect the seal affixed thereon and to satisfy themselves that it is intact. If the Returning Officer is satisfied that any ballot box has in fact been tampered with, he is prohibited from counting the ballot papers contained in that box and he has to follow the procedure prescribed in that behalf in s. 58. Clause (1) of rule 56 provides for the scrutiny and rejection of ballot papers. Clause (2) sets out detailed provisions relating to cases in which the Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper. By clause (3) it is provided that before rejecting any ballot paper under sub-rule (2), the returning officer shall allow each counting agent present a reasonable opportunity to inspect such ballot papers. The Returning Officer has then to record on every ballot paper which he rejects the grounds of rejection. All the rejected ballot papers are required to be put in one bundle. Rule 57 deals with the counting of votes. Each ballot paper which is not rejected is counted as one valid vote. The Returning Officer has to make to entries in a result sheet in Form 20 after counting of the ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes used at the polling stations. Clause (3) of rule 57 enacts an elaborate set of rules about the entries to be made in respect of the counting and scrutiny of the ballot papers. By rule 60 counting has to be continuous, and rule 63(1) provides that after the completion of the counting, the Returning Officer shall record in the result sheet in Form 20 the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the result. By clause (2) of rule 63 it is provided that after such announcement is made, a candidate or his election agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a re-count of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such re-count. The Returning Officer must decide the application and record his reasons in support of his decision and he may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced, the Returning Officer must complete and sign the result sheet in Form 20 and after such form is completed no application for re-count may be entertained. Under rule 64 the declaration of the result of the election is made by declaring elected a candidate who has secured the largest number of valid votes, and the Returning Officer is required to complete and certify the return of election.”
14. Reliance has also been placed upon Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Abhilakh Tewari vs. Election Tribunal, Gonda AIR 1958 Allahabad 663 and decision of Apex Court rendered in L.R.Shivaramagowda & Ors. vs. T.M. Chandrashekar (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 666 wherein the Court had held that pleadings should be specific by the election petitioner pleading that result of election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or Rules.
15. Reliance has also been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others AIR 1982 SC 983. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :
“8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance With the statutory creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act 1951 and again, no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self contained code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. We are concerned with an election dispute. The question is who are parties to an election dispute and who may be impleaded as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What does the Act say ?”
16. Lastly counsel has placed reliance upon decision of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Writ-C No.23105 of 2023 (Vijay Singh vs. Rajdeep Singh & Anr.) decided on 02.08.2023 wherein this Court, relying upon earlier decisions, have held that recounting should not be made lightly or as a matter of course as the same touches upon the secrecy of the ballot papers and introduces the element of uncertainties.
17. Replying to the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, Sri V.K.Singh, Senior Advocate, submitted that the pleadings of election petitioner is specific and in para 7 it has been averred that in Booth No.1, out of 384 votes polled, only 383 votes have been counted, while in Booth No.2, out of total 429 votes polled, only 381 votes have been counted. Thus, 49 votes, which were cast, have not been counted and the Returned Candidate has been declared winner by 2 (two) votes. He further contended that in para 9, there is a specific pleading that election petitioner had got more than 522 votes but by not counting 49 votes, which were polled, the election result have been declared which has materially affected the result.
18. He further contended that the grounds for filing the election petition has been given in para 10 of the election petition and concise summary as per Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 has been set out therein. In sub-clause (vi) of para 10 of the election petition, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that out of total 1868 votes polled, only 1819 votes have been counted.
19. He then contended that under Right to Information Act, election petitioner had gathered the information on 20.01.2022 in regard to total number of votes polled and votes counted, which had been the basis for filing of election petition and the Prescribed Authority, relying upon the documentary evidence, so submitted, had proceeded to pass the order for recounting, which needs no interference by this Court.
20. Pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2023, learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the records received by him. According to the records, Form 36, as maintained, disclosed that total number of votes polled in Booth-1 are 384 while in Booth-2 are 429. Similarly total number of votes polled in Booth Nos.3, 4 & 5 are 366, 363 and 326 respectively.
21. I have heard respective counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
22. The Returned Candidate before this Court had earlier questioned the legality of the order passed by Prescribed Authority deciding election petition of Returned Candidate and directing for recounting of votes on 01.02.2023, through Writ-C No.5784 of 2023, which was allowed on 21.02.2023 and the matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the matter afresh.
23. It is post-remand that the Prescribed Authority proceeded to examine the witnesses of the parties and considered the documentary evidence on record and decided issue Nos.2 to 10. Issue No.2 was as to whether on the basis of pleading made in the election petition and the ground taken therein, recounting can be ordered? The Prescribed Authority, relying upon the documentary evidence, which was in the form of information given to the election petitioner under Right to Information Act on 20.01.2022 that the Prescribed Authority found that out of total 1868 votes polled, only 1819 votes were counted and 49 votes were left from the counting, which he ordered for recounting.
24. The case set up by the Returned Candidate is that election petition lacks pleading to the effect that grounds to be taken in the election petition warranting interference by the Election Tribunal is not there and the pleading in stricto sensu as to the non inclusion of 49 votes in the counting would materially affect the result of the Returned Candidate.
25. Emphasis have been made to show that election petition filed under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947 should contain the concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies as is there under Section 83 of Representation of Peoples Act. The matter is no more res integra and the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Adhar Singh (supra) relying upon decision of Apex Court in case of Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) had clearly held that hearing an election petition, the authority under the Act, can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of ballot papers, two conditions must co-exist;-
(i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which election of respondent is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and
(ii) the authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties.
26. The decisions relied by Returned Candidate in case of Ram Abhilakh Tewari (supra), L.R. Shivaramagowda & Ors. (supra) and Jyoti Basu & Ors. (supra) only emphasises the fact that the language used under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and the rules framed thereunder is that the election petitioner has to plead that result of election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate had been materially affected by alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or Rules.
27. Likewise, the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court, which has relied upon the various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, had found that order of recounting should not be made lightly or as a matter of course as the same touches upon the secrecy of the ballot papers and introduces the element of uncertainties.
28. In the instant case, the election petitioner had challenged the election of Returned Candidate on the ground of non inclusion of 49 votes, which were cast and had remained uncounted. The information, which had been sought by the election petitioner under Right to Information Act and placed as a documentary evidence before Prescribed Authority dated 20.01.2022 reveals that total number of votes polled was 1868 and total number of votes counted are only 1819. No reason has been assigned as to why 49 votes remained uncounted, which were cast.
29. This Court on 22.12.2023 had directed the Sanding Counsel to place the entire records before this Court pursuant to which the records were placed at the time of hearing on 08.01.2024. From perusal of the records, it was clear that total number of votes polled are 1868, which is reflected from From 36. The break up of which are; votes polled in Booth -1 are 384 and in Booth -2 are 429. Similarly, votes polled in Booths – 3, 4 & 5 are 366, 363 & 326 respectively. On adding the entire votes polled in these five booths, it comes to 1868 votes while counting has been done of only 1819 votes.
30. Perusal of paras 7, 8, 9 and 10 of election petition clearly reveals that election petitioner has questioned the election of Returned Candidate disclosing the entire factum of vote polled in each of the booths and the vote counted. Moreover, in para 9 of the election petition it has been averred that election petitioner had got more than 522 votes but without taking into consideration 49 votes in counting, the Returned Candidate had been declared elected by two votes. The election petitioner has set out the grounds and the concise summary of facts as per Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 read along with Section 12-C(1) of Act of 1947 complying the requirements of the election petition.
31. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Om Prakash Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. & others 2008 (105) RD 58 in somewhat similar situation after taking note of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Apex Court rendered in Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) proceeded to recounting of votes.
32. In an identical situation, this Court in Godawari vs. Zubaida and Ors. 2020 (11) ADJ 233 ordered for recounting wherein total number of votes polled were 1139 while the counting was done of 1129 votes.
33. The argument raised by the Returned Candidate as to the pleading of material facts in the election petition, which would materially affect the election of Returned Candidate, finds place in paras 9 and 10 and reliance placed upon various decisions does not help his cause as it is not in dispute that 1868 votes were polled and only 1819 votes were counted leaving 49 votes and the victory margin is of only 2 (two) votes. Neither the decision rendered in Ram Sewak Yadav (supra) by the Constitution Bench helps the case of the petitioner (Returned Candidate) nor the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in case of Ram Adhar Singh (supra).
34. In fact, the Full Bench had laid down the conditions, upon the satisfaction of which the authority can proceed to grant relief when the material is produced before it and there is a ground for believing the existence of such ground and for doing complete justice between the parties.
35. In the instant case, total number of votes polled are 1868 while votes counted are only 1819. The pleadings are specific as to the result of the election has been materially affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of Act of 1947 and the rules framed thereunder.
36. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the material on record as well as records summoned by the Court, I find that no case for interference is made out in the order dated 16.12.2023 passed by respondent No.1 directing for recounting of votes as total number of votes polled are 1868 while only 1819 votes have been counted.
37. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Respondent No.1 is directed to fix the date for recounting of votes within one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
