PARVATIA Vs. PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Govinvan, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur in the election held on 15.01.2005, after drawing a lot on 18.01.2005 by the Returning Officer, as the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 secured equal number of votes i.e. 365-365.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 filed election petition under the provisions of Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') on 21.2.2005 before the Specified Officer i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur. THE Petitioner filed her written statement to the election petition and submitted specifically that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 had secured equal votes and with the consent of Respondent No. 1, the result was declared on account of draw of lots. Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection to the procedure of draw of lots. THEreafter, the Specified officer, without framing issues and without conducting the trial of the case, directed for recounting of votes. THE said order was impugned in W.P. No. 3187 of 2006 (Parvatia v. Padmini and Ors.). This Court, vide order dated 31.8.2005, set aside the order passed by the Specified Officer and directed the Specified officer to proceed with the matter and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce their evidence and cross examine the witnesses of the other parties. THE Sub Divisional Officer, thereafter, framed issues and examined the evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering, came to the conclusion that the son of the Petitioner congratulated the son of the Respondent No. 1 which led into victory procession on the basis that counting slips of polling station No. 1 Hand 115 was not given to all the agents except to the son of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer directed recounting of votes polled in polling station No. 114 and 115 of Gram Panchayat Govinvan vide order dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure P/1).

(3.) SHRI Rajesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Specified Officer has directed recounting of votes without any application made for the same during counting of votes before the appropriate authority. The order passed by the Specified authority is contrary to the principles of recounting of votes as laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases. The Respondent No. 1 has acquiesced for re-counting of votes as Respondent agreed for declaration of result by draw of lots without any demur. The petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of lack of material facts and proper pleadings regarding irregularities and illegalities committed in the counting of votes. The verification of the election petition was also not in accordance with law.