High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Ram Snehi v. State Of U.P. Thru' Panchayat Raj And Others - WRIT - C No. 1504 of 2007  RD-AH 8588 (7 May 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1504 of 2007
Smt. Ram Sanehi ................................................................ Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B. P. Mistra and Sri Awasthi appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.3.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer - Prescribed Authority directing for recount of the votes. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain appearing for the petitioner challenging the order contended that there was no material before the Prescribed Authority for directing recount of the votes. He submits that recount can be directed only in accordance with the principles laid down by the apex Court in the case of Bhabhi Versus Sheo Govind and others reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2117. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority committed error in directing recount. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri P. N. Saxena has, justifying the recount, submitted that there was sufficient material pleading in the election petition as well as the material before the Prescribed Authority including final result on the basis of which requisite satisfaction has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority.
I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A copy of the election petition has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition . Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the election petition contain material pleadings. In Gram Panchayat Rampur Dehat there are four booths namely 48, 49, 50 and 51. Total vote cast were 1894. The election petitioner (Smt. Taramati ) secured 197 votes at booth No. 48, 266 votes at booth No. 49, 24 votes at booth No. 50 and 21 votes at booth No. 51 in total the election petitioner secured 508 votes. The election petitioner's case in paragraphs 5 of the election petition is that Parshishta-7 shows that at Booth no. 50 no vote was secured by the the election petitioner which shows that the records have been manipulated. In paragraph 6 it has been stated that the returned candidate (the petitioner )secured 212 votes at booth No. 48, 13 votes at booth No.49, 2 votes at booth No. 50 and 260 votes at booth No. 51. In total 487 votes were secured but at booth no. 51 returned candidate has been shown to have secured 265 votes which has been wrongly mentioned. The copy of the result of the election has been annexed along with the writ petition and was also filed before the election tribunal as Parshishta-7. An application was filed by the election petitioner praying for recount. The parties were heard by the Prescribed Authority. The election tribunal noted the pleadings of the election petition. The election petitioner also contended before the election tribunal that according to Parshishta-7 , the total votes secured by the election petitioner were shown as 490 whereas by the calculation of votes total votes secured comes 484 according to final result sheet which clearly suggest that the figures in the final result are not correct. The election tribunal was satisfied that this was a case for recount. The ground that the votes of the election petitioner have been shown as 490 whereas according to the final result sheet it comes to 484 clearly suggested that the case for recount was made out.
This Court vide order dated 16.1.2007 stayed the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.12.2006. However, subsequently by order of this Court dated 20.2.2007 recount was directed. The recount has taken place on 6.3.2007. The result of the recount has been brought on the record by filling short counter affidavit by the learned standing counsel. The final result sheet prepared on 6.3.2007 has been brought on record according to which the petitioner secured 475 votes and the respondent no. 3 who was election petitioner has been shown to have secured 488 votes.
The submission of the petitioner is that there was no sufficient material before the election tribunal directing for recount hence the order dated 29.12.2006 is unjustified. As noticed above, in the election petition there was clear pleadings for a recount. The error in counting was also clearly depicted from the final result sheet prepared in Parshishta-7 which obviously contained in correct calculation. The specific pleading of the election petitioner in paragraph 5 was that at both No. 50 she secured 24 votes but Parshishta-7 shows that no vote was polled in favour of the election petitioner. In above view of the matter I am satisfied that there was sufficient pleadings and grounds for directing recount and the order directing for recount cannot be said to be without any basis or against the principles of law as laid down by the apex Court in Bhabhi Versus Sheo Govind and others (supra) . It is true that the court before ordering inspection of the ballot papers has to be satisfied with the allegations made for recount. The Court must be also satisfied that it is necessary to grant prayer of inspection of the ballots to do full justice between the parties. Sri Jain also made oral submission attacking the recount held on 6.3.2007, he submits that the recount was made contrary to rule 50 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj ( Election of Members, Pradhans and Up-Pradhans ) Rules, 1994.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed that he be permitted to amend the writ petition by taking grounds challenging the recounting grounds. Sri P. N. Saxena has submitted that in fact the petitioner has made an application stating that he does not want to amend the writ petition. An application has been filed today praying that the writ petition be heard and decided on merits.
The writ petition contains only one prayer i.e. praying for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2006 directing for recount. I have heard the parties only with regard to the order dated 29.12.2006 and this writ petition is decided only on the prayer as contained in the writ petition. It will be open for the petitioner to take separate proceedings with regard to the result of recount dated 6.3.2007 if so advised.
As observed above, I do not find any error in the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 29.12.2006 directing for recount. The order dated 29.12.2006 does not warrant any interference by this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The interim order stands discharged.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.