SUK LAL Vs. PREM KUMAR BANDHE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The justice delayed may amount to justice denied, but justice hurried, may in some cases amount to justice buried." The secrecy of ballot is always insisted in a democratic system of Society to respect a fair election but the inspection may be directed when it necessitates to secure the ends of justice keeping in mind the necessity of maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers as the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is genuine need for it. The process adopted in finding a necessity, must be known to law and the requirement of procedural law may not be by-passed to reach in hurry to the conclusion to open the seal of ballot boxes. The finality of decision vide Rule 25 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 creates a great responsibility on the Specified Officer to strictly act in accordance with the Rules, which has not been done in this case by passing an order of recount at the very preliminary stage which constrains this Court to write a judgment as follows:-

(2.) The brief facts are that an election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhanpuri, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) took place on 20-10-2005. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of one vote against respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 challenged the election of the petitioner on the ground that some valid votes polled by the respondent No. 1 were illegally declared as invalid by the Returning Officer and the counting was not proper. He made allegations that though an application for recount was given under the relevant rules before the Returning Officer at the time of counting but the Returning Officer did not accept the said application and ultimately the results were declared in the aforesaid manner. The only prayer made in the election petition is that a recounting be directed and the election of the petitioner be set aside. The petitioner filed his written statement and denied the contentions of respondent No. 1. His contention was that the counting was properly done and further, no objection was raised by respondent No. 1 at the time of counting for recount and the allegations regarding submission of an application at the time of counting for a recount are false. No case of recount is made out. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. It appears that the Specified Officer, thereafter heard the arguments and recorded a finding that since an application for recount was given by the respondent before the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer did not accept the aforesaid application and further since there is a defeat by margin of one vote only, it would be proper to direct the recount and in this manner, he allowed the election petition and directed for recounting of votes by the impugned order dated 10-2-2006 passed in Election Petition No. 3-B/121/2004-2005.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that finding in relation to submission of an application for recount before the Returning Officer is based on no evidence on record. His further submission was that unless it is established that an application for recounting was given before the Returning Officer, a petition for recounting of votes would not be maintainable. He also submitted that a petition for recount cannot be allowed without affording an opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and without recording a positive finding as to why a recount is necessary. The submission was that unless a foundation regarding prayer of recount is laid down by the election petitioner and the same is substantiated by the cogent oral and/or documentary evidence, an order of recount only on the basis of pleadings of the parties, was not justified.