GOKUL PRASAD PATEL Vs. SPECIFIED OFFICER/SDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the dismissal of election petition by the S. D. O. as per Order (P-7 ).

(2.) PETITIONER preferred election petition under Section 122 of the MP. Panchayat and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground of irregularity in the counting and the recounting was held in illegal manner by the Presiding Officer. Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 7 in the reply before SDO contended that counting was properly held. No written application was filed by the petitioner for recounting. On the prayer made by the petitioner recounting was done, still no change was found. SDO as per order (P-4) in spite of giving finding that no written application was filed before the Presiding Officer seeking recount, ordered the recount as per order dated 4-7-2001 and appointed a Committee of three persons. Recounting has been held and report (P-5) was submitted before the SDO. SDO has dismissed the election petition holding that counting was held properly and result remains the same.

(3.) SHRI Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that from the report (P-5) of recounting it is clear that on 24 ballot papers out of 28 some other marks were also found by the lead pen. As such these 24 votes ought to have been discarded and could not be counted in favour of respondent No. 4 Teerat Prasad. He further submitted that double standard has been applied inasmuch as similar votes found in favour of the election petitioner were rejected.