CHARAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority) Sardhana, Meerut directing the recount of votes cast at an election for the office of Pradhan of village Bhadal. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was elected Pradhan of the said village on 6.7.1982. The respondent No. 3 filed an election petition under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds. The petitioner filed a written statement controverting the various assertions made by the respondent No. 3 in his election petition. On 3.8.1982 the respondent No. 3 filed an application abandoning all the grounds upon which the petition was founded except those which related to same alleged irregularities in the counting of votes. The respondent No. 3 in this application stated that he confined his election petition only to the prayer for recount. This application was opposed by the petitioner. The Sub -Divisional Officer, however by the impugned order dated 3.8.1982, allowed that application by a cryptic order, the substance of which is that the respondent No. 3 had abandoned all his pleas in the election petition except that pertaining to recount. The respondent No. 3 desired recount Under the circumstances the application is allowed.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order, the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge that no error of jurisdiction had been committed by the Sub -Divisional Officer.

(3.) IT is settled law that recount cannot be ordered on the mere asking or as a matter of course. An order directing recount has serious implications and it should not be ordered unless a prima facie case is made out. It has been repeatedly emphasised both by this Court and the Supreme Court that adequate particulars must be set out and prima facie established indicating that there have been some irregularities in the counting which are likely to have materially affected the result before the Court should direct recount of votes. See S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1362 (Para 33), A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 206, : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2182, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 215 and A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 276 In these cases it has been stressed that the discretion conferred upon the Court in regard to directing recount of votes should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials for declaring the election void.