POONAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shivnath Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 5 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents No. 1 to 4 and perused the record on Board.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dtd. 20/3/2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 19), Kanpur Nagar in Revision No. 97 of 2023, whereby a direction has been issued for recounting of ballot papers and to scrutinize three (3) invalid ballot papers allegedly cast in favour of respondent No. 5, reversing the order dtd. 2/3/2023 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Sadar/Prescribed Authority rejecting the election petition filed by respondent No. 5 under Sec. 12(C) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in brevity 'Act 1947 ').

(3.) Facts culled out from the record are that in the panchayat election 202021, the present petitioner has been declared returned candidate on the post of Pradhan, Village Pargahi Bangar, Vikas Khand Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. As per schedule, the election was held on 15/4/2021 and result after counting was pronounced on 2/5/2021. In the final result, the present petitioner has secured 270 votes, however, respondent No. 5 (election petitioner) has secured 262 votes. Thus, there is a margin of eight (8) votes between the successful candidate and the runnerup. Having been dissatisfied with the panchayat election result dtd. 2/5/2021, respondent No. 5 has filed an election petition dtd. 28/5/2021 under Sec. 12C of the Act 1947, inter alia, on several grounds including unfair counting, which is relevant for the purposes to decide the instant writ petition, with the plea that three (3) ballots cast in favour of the election applicant have illegally been declared invalid; that at booth No. 1 total 500 ballots were cast, however, while the ballot box opened only 497 ballots were founded, thus, there is a difference of three ballot papers; that likewise at booth Nos. 2 and 3 there is a difference of one ballot paper each between the ballot paper cast and ballot paper counted; that Returning Officer in collusion with the husband of the successful candidate has declared those ballots invalid which were cast in favour of election petitioner and pronounced unfair election result; that bundle of the ballot papers which were cast in favour of the petitioner was consisting of 51 ballot papers, however, same has been counted pretending it to be bundle of only 50 ballot papers; that ballot papers cast in favour of election petitioner has illegally been kept in the bundle of retuned candidate and counted for him; Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer have got Form 46 prepared by unfair counting and declare the opposite party No. 1 (petitioner herein) successful; that despite the objection raised by the election petitioner, she has forcibly been ousted from the counting center. The Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal has rejected the Election Petition vide an order dtd. 2/3/2023. Revisional Court, on revision being filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, has allowed the revision reversing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and issued a direction for recounting of ballot papers as well as scrutiny of three ballot papers cast in favour of the petitioner which were declared invalid, which is under challenge before this Court.