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.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Prescribed Authority has misread the evidence on record. He has not given any reason to discard the Garna Parishishth 2GA, which is an authentic paper signed by the Election Officer and has chosen very flimsy grounds for recounting the ballot papers, which will disturb the secrecy of votes. He further submits that the prayer in the writ petition that if the election result be summoned and if 2221 ballots were found to be issued, only then the recount be made, was not considered by the Prescribed Authority.