RAM PHER Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Misra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 No one appear for remaining respondents.

(2.) An election of Pradhanship was contested between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 8. The petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 12-C (1) of Panchayat Raj Act challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, It appears that during hearing of the election petition a prayer was made before the learned S.D.O. for recounting of the ballots which application was allowed by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7.

(3.) This order dated 22-6-96 is sough to be quashed through the present writ petition on the ground that there was no material before the learned S.D.O. on the basis of which recounting was necessary. It is submitted that in the election petition no ground was taken from which recounting was permissible. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the writ petition it was specifically stated that voters in the voter list at serial No. 476, 496 and 604 had already died before election had taken place and their fictitious votes were case by impersonating and this had affected the result of the election besides other ground taken by the respondent No. 3. It is also submitted that remedy by way of revision lies before the District Judge and since there is alternative remedy the petition should not be entertained.