RAM PAL SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE impugned order in this writ petition is the order of recount passed by the Election Tribunal. THE recount has been attempted to be justified on the ground that the date and time of the actual counting was not intimated to the election petitioner, as a result of lack of knowledge neither the election petitioner nor his agent could be present at the time of actual counting. Learned Counsel for the elec tion petitioner has argued that Rule 12-C specifically provides that the date and time of the counting should be intimated to the candidates and the said rule has been vio lated, therefore, the next thing which elec tion petitioner is required to prove is that in consequence of non-compliance of the Rule 12-C, the result of the election has been materially affected. According to the learned Counsel for the election petitioner he and his agent could not be present at the time of counting therefore, recounting is only the method by which the election petitioner can prove the effect of the non- compliance of the rule upon the result of the election.