NARENDRA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby he has directed for recounting of votes in a pending election petition of Gram Panchayat before him after hearing the parties.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the case are that election of Village Pradhan was held in June, 2005, in which the petitioner was declared elected Pradhan of Village- (Morna (Agahpur) Tehsil Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. The respondent No. 2 challenged the result of aforesaid election through Election Petition No. 5 of 2005 on various allegations made in the election petition contained in Annexure- 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner contested the election petition by filing his written statement denying the allegations made in the said election petition, inter alia, alleging that there was no irregularity in the election held and the petition is mala fide and based on vague allegations. Other candidates who are opposite parties in the election petition have personal grudge against the petitioner, as such filed affidavits in support of respondent No. 2 alleging that they were present at the time of counting of votes and were witness for interference by the petitioner and his relative in improper counting of votes, according to which the entire election was proved to be illegal. After filing of the affidavits by the opp. parties in the election petition who had contested the election petition against the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application on 15.7.2006 for permitting them to cross- examine the deponents of said affidavits. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 filed objection against the said application of the petitioner alleging that the application filed by the petitioner was malafide and just to delay the hearing of election petition. The respondent No. 1 the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15.7.2006 rejected the application on the ground that the application was just to delay the proceeding. Another application was also moved by the petitioner on 4.8.2006 alleging that the allegations made in the election petition are vague and no material particulars are given in the election petition, as such the said petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The respondent No. 1 dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.8,2006 only on the ground that the petitioner had moved the application just to delay the proceeding of election petition. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated 15.7.2006 and 17.8.2006 the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 55042 of 2006 which has been dismissed by this Court on 10.10.2006. Thereafter in pending election petition the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 moved an application for recount of votes. The respondent No. 1 has allowed the said application solely on the ground that if counting was correct and according to rules then it would not harm if the votes are recounted and it would further strengthen that the election was free and fair. It is stated that the evidence is yet to be adduced by the respective parties in the said election petition and in absence of evidence the respondent could not have passed the order for recount of votes.

(3.) Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.C. Mandhyan for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari for respondent No. 2.