(1.) PETITIONER in the writ petition challenges the validity of the election of Uttam Khan/respondent No. 1 to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Kanora Ram Nagar, Block Batiyagarh, District -Damoh held on February 1st, 2000. Aggrieved by the election, petitioner Tulsiram preferred an election petition under section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the prescribed authority S.D.O. mainly on two grounds; first the counting was not properly held and the second ground was that result of the election was materially affected due to cast of vote of a deceased person, namely, Munnalal. The facts are denied by returned candidate. S.D.O. recorded the evidence of parties and dismissed the election petition.
(2.) THE parties in the writ petition have confined their submissions to two aspects recounting and cast of vote of deceased Munnalal. After recording the evidence, SDO as per order Annexure P/8 dated June 1st, 2000 ordered recount. Recounting was held; on recount one vote in favour of petitioner Tulsiram was found to be invalid and one vote in favour of Uttam Khan was also found to be invalid. The total votes obtained by different candidates are noted below: -
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submits that as per rule 15 of M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995, it is necessary to seek recrimination when a seat is claimed. Rule 15 provides that whereas, at an enquiry into an election, any candidate claims, the seat for himself, the elected candidate or any other party may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been the elected candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election. Relying on Rule 15, learned counsel submits that vote which was earlier counted in his favour could not be counted against him at the time of recount particularly when no recrimination was sought by winning candidate as against the present petitioner in the election petition.