NEKI BAI Vs. MITHLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri F. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. K. Bharadwaj, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri Sanjiv Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 8. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 25-5-2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nateran by which election petition preferred by respondent No. 1 under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and a direction for recount of the votes has been issued.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of the petition are that election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sangrampur, District Vidisha were held on 21-1-2010. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 8 contested the aforesaid election. The petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 8 filed an election petition under section 122 of the Act inter alia on the ground that vote polled in favour of respondents No. 1 and 8 have been improperly rejected and the votes have not been properly counted. It was pleaded in the writ petition that though an objection was raised at the time of recounting of the votes, however, no heed was paid to the objection preferred by the election petitioners. The petitioner filed written statement in which inter alia averments made in the election petition were denied to the effect that election officer has favoured the petitioner and has wrongly rejected the votes which were validly polled in favour of election petitioners. It was further pleaded that no objection at the time of counting of the votes was taken by the election petitioners. The prescribed authority after recording the evidence of the parties and as stated supra, vide order dated 25-2-2010, directed recount of the votes.