DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HON'ble A. P. Sahi, J.- Heard Sri Manish Nigam learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. P. Misra for the respondent No. 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

(2.) THIS Court had earlier issued notices to the other respondents for which steps have been taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but no Counsel has put in appearance. It is further submitted that the main contesting respon dent Kusum Devi is contesting the matter and Sri H. P. Misra has advanced his submissions.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the represented parties as well as the learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be sup ported on the basis of the conclusions drawn. The order rather renders an opinion of a simple doubt without there being any conclusion drawn by the officer on the basis of evidence led. The order of re-counting in the opinion of the Court cannot be passed on the basis of mere doubts and therefore, the order dated 23. 4. 2008 in view of the law laid down in Ram Adhar's case (supra) is unsustainable.