SHIV SHANKER CHAUHAN Vs. KAUSHAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Jain, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.K. Awasthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Nandan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri D.B. Yadav, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1. Since,, the remaining respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are proforma respondents, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without calling for a counter affidavit since no factual controversy is involved.

(2.) IT transpires that the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan in the year 2005. The petitioner secured 538 votes and the contesting respondent No. 1 secured 535 votes. 57 votes were declared invalid and the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as the elected Pradhan under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The contesting respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on various grounds. During its pendency, the contesting respondent moved an application dated 23.1.06 before the prescribed authority for the recounting of the votes and on this application, an order dated 7.2.06 was passed summoning the original record and the ballot papers. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed writ petition No. 5756.7 of 2006, in which an interim order dated 19.10.06 was passed staying further proceedings before the prescribed authority. Subsequently, the Writ Court, by an order dated 2.3.07 modified the earlier interim order by staying the order dated 7.2.06 and directing the prescribed authority to proceed with the election petition and to dispose of the petition expeditiouly. The writ Court, by the said order dated 2.3.07, found that the impugned order of 7.2.06 did not contain any reason for summoning the ballot papers and consequently directed the prescribed authority not to take any action pursuant to the said order.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the impugned order, the Court finds that the justification given by the prescribed authority for the recounting of the votes is, that the Returning Officer had earlier recounted the votes. Further, the petitioner had not filed any evidence to show that the recounting of the votes was not necessary, and therefore, held that the recounting of the votes would neither prejudice the petitioner nor would affect his right, if any. Further, the prescribed authority found that the principles of natural justice requires recounting of the votes in the larger interest and that the secrecy of votes will not be affected, if such a direction was issued.