SRINIVAS AMANTA Vs. SRI NANDA KISHORE KARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner -a successful elected candidate to the office of Aida Grama Punchayat in the District of Dhenkanal challenges the order for recount of ballot papers passed by the learned Munsif of Athmallik in a proceeding under Section 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat 1964 (Orissa Act I of 1965) in which the Petitioner's election was challenged by the defeated candidate.

(2.) ON May 22, 1967 there was a polling for election to the office of Sarpanch of Aida Grama Panchayat in Athmalik Block of the district of Dhenkanal at which the Petitioner was elected. On June 19, 1967 the defeated candidate filed before the learned Munsif of Athmalik an application in which be made a prayer for recount of the votes passed by the candidates; the learned Munsif, after taking evidence of both parties and hearing their lawyer, declared the election of the opposite party before him (Petitioner herein) as Sarpanch of the Aida Grama Panchayat to be void and further declared the Petitioner before him (opposite party herein) to be the duly elected in the office of Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. The said application for recounting of votes was opposed by the present Petitioner who was the opposite party in that proceeding and he filed a written statement objecting to the recounting of votes. On August 23, 1967 the learned Munsif elected the petition objecting to the recounting of votes on the finding that unless he recounted the votes" the issue raised before him whether there has been an improper rejection or admission of any votes at the said election by any of the officers entrusted with election work -cannot be answered the learned Munsif ordered that "for the ends of justice. I will have to recount the votes in the presence of parties in open Court no matter to which side the result goes."

(3.) THE settled position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court is, in substance, this: An order for recount may' not he granted as a matter of course; having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled:(i) that the petition for setting aside an, election contains adequate statements the material facts on which the Petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) that. the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary 'their Lordships also made it clear that an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot; be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts on to fish out evidence, to support such pleas. The case of the Petitioner must be Act out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted; but a mere allegation that the Petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection Ramsewak Jadav v. H.K. kidwai : : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1249, 1252. Thus a candidate who seeks a declaration that the election of the returned candidate was void and that he (Petitioner) was duly elected, on the ground that if the votes had been properly counted, he would have got a majority of votes, is not entitled to have a recount of the votes as a matter of absolute right. A recount can be ordered only if he makes out a prima facie case that if the votes had been properly scrutinised and counted he would have got a majority of the votes Basaviah v. Bachiah and Ors., 17 Election Law Reports 293.