RAJNEESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi for opposite party No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur. By this order the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur has directed for recounting of the votes in the election of 'Pradhan' held on 28.10.2010. The petitioner who is an elected 'Pradhan' is aggrieved by this order. He says that the order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in very cursory and casual manner. There was not sufficient material for him to proceed and to come to a conclusion that recounting is necessary. He also says that perhaps the order has been passed under the influence of the High Court's order which had directed him to pass appropriate orders and further that it was an election matter and roving and fishing inquiry should not be encouraged in the election matters.

(3.) He has placed reliance on a number of Supreme Court judgments and one Single Judge judgment of this Hon'ble Court. It has been held in these judgments that in a democracy there should be stability and frequent interference in the process of the election by ordering recounting will vitiate the solemn objective for which the elections are held. Learned Counsel has argued that elections in a democratic process are held to govern and if the elected member is not given the stability of mind then he will not be able to perform his duties for which the statutes have envisaged a tenure / term. Instability leads to nonperformance and non-governance. Mr. Tripathi says that in the present case all these elements were not considered. It is his case, that in an election petition more caution should be applied. The rules should be interpreted and adhered to in a strict manner of interpretation. He emphasizes that literal interpretation should be applied in the case of elections and by these standards the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is bad. Following judgments have been relied by the petitioner in this regard :--