JANAKLALI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29.6.2016 Annexure P-1 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer and Specified authority (herein after referred to as 'Election Tribunal') under the Panchayat Act passed the said order and directed for recount of votes.

(2.) The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner and private respondents herein submitted their nominations for election for the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat, Umari Shivraji, Janpad Panchayat Amarpatan, District Satna. The voting took place on 5.2.2015 and ultimately the petitioner was elected by margin of only three votes. Aggrieved, respondent no.4 filed an election petition under Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam'). After services of notices to the otherside and obtaining their response, learned tribunal framed nine issues. The evidence of parties were recorded.Thereafter, the election tribunal passed the impugned order dated 29.6.2016 which is called in question in the present petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that in the election petition, the respondent no.4 has pleaded that six valid votes which were cast in her favour were wrongly added in favour of the present petitioner. However, the witnesses who deposed their statement in favour of the election petitioner did not support that version. Their statements are contradictory which shows that the pleadings of election petitioner that six valid votes of election petitioner were added by the presiding officer in favour of the petitioner were not established.