RAVINDRA SINGH SON OF BALESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ELECTION COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.R. Singh appears for Shri Omkar -respondent No. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are proforma respondents. With the consent of parties, the writ petition was heard and is being finally decided.

(2.) THE petitioner contested the elections and was elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Yurajpur, Pargana & Tehsil Zamania. Distt. Ghazipur of which the result was declared on 28.8.2005. Shri Omkar, respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Section 12 -C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 on the grounds of material irregularities in the counting of votes. He alleged that at the end of the counting of the votes in the elections in which 2221 electors exercised their right to vote, the election petitioner was found to have secured 587 votes. Shri Ravindra, opposite party No. 1 secured 584 votes; opposite party No. 2 secured 540 votes and opposite party No. 3 secured 430 votes. There were 80 invalid votes. In this manner Shri Omkar, the election petitioner was declared to be winner. When he demanded the certificate, he was told that the result is to be sent to the Asstt. Election Officer and that he will get his certificate from him. The election petitioner kept on waiting. He, however, was later on surprised to learn that Shri Ravindra Singh, opposite party No. 1 was declared as elected with margin of one vote. The petitioner gave the details of the irregularities in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 and prayed for cancelling the elections or to examine the electoral list, which was marked and the number of ballots, which were issued and if they were found to be 2221 in number, they should be recounted and he should be declared as elected. The Sub Divisional Officer/ Election Tribunal by his order dated 19.3.2008 has directed recount of votes and has summoned the entire records by 28.3.2005 and to hold recounting on 31.3.2008 giving rise to this writ petition.

(3.) THE law with regard to recount of votes is fairly well settled. In Beli Ram Bhalaik v. : AIR1975SC283 the Supreme Court cautioned that since an order for a recount touches upon the secrecy of ballot, it should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. Although no cast iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet, from a bedroll of the decisions of this Court, two broad guidelines are discernible; that the court would be justified in ordering a recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (I) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity, or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. In Suresh Prasad Yadav v. : [1975]3SCR21 , Chanda Singh v. : AIR1975SC403 , Manphul Singh v. : [1975]2SCR680 , same principles were upheld. These principles were reiterated in Bhabhi v. : AIR1975SC2117 as follows: