Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Yogesh Kumar v. Smt. Shailendri Devi & Others - WRIT - C No. - 47467 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16100 (27 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana appearing for the contesting respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for both the parties prayed that the writ petition be decided without inviting a counter affidavit.

Election petition has been filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Evidence was led. Issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority. By order dated 11.9.2007 the Prescribed Authority took a decision that before deciding the issues No.3, 4 and 5 it is necessary to pass an order for recount. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.9.2007 directing for recount, contended that no reasons have been given in the order except that the petitioner has suspicion of wrong counting. Sri Asthana appearing for the respondent contended that there was evidence on record including the oral evidence on the basis of which the order for recount has been passed.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the order.

While deciding the issue No. 9 the Prescribed Authority observed that the statements of the witnesses are contradictory which indicate that there is some irregularity in the counting due to which petitioner became suspicious . It has further been held that for removal of suspicion it is necessary to direct for recount. It is well settled that the order of recount can be passed only when there is pleading and evidence to substantiate that there are sufficient grounds for recount. Merely on the ground that the petitioner had suspicion that certain irregularities had been committed in counting of votes, cannot form a basis for directing recount. No other reason has been given by the Prescribed Authority directing for recount.

In view of above, the order dated 11.9.2007 in so far as it directs for recount, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that it will be open for the Prescribed Authority to proceed with the election petition and decide the same in accordance with law. This election petition being pending since 2005, the said election petition be finally disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.

With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.