ZAIL SINGH Vs. RENU MEHTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 vide which learned Election Tribunal, Zira has ordered for the recounting of votes in respect of Election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Khunder Hithar, Block Mamdot, Tehsil Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur.

(2.) In the petition, it is mainly stated that respondent filed election petition in the Court of Election Tribunal, Ferozepur and later on it was transferred to Election Tribunal, Zira for setting aside the election of petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Khunder Hithar and for declaring the respondent as duly elected Sarpanch and further praying for recounting of votes. It is further stated that counting of votes was done in the presence of both the parties and the petitioner and respondent No.1 got polled 166 and 154 votes in their favour respectively and two votes were rejected and this fact is also clear from the statement of the result and it was done in the presence of polling agents and candidates and the rejected votes were shown to all the persons present in the hall and the result was declared by completing the counting and the present petitioner was declared elected with a margin of 12 votes. It is also stated that respondent No.1 has herself admitted in her statement that it is correct that she was present in the counting room and the counting was done in her presence, which is itself clear from the Election Petition filed by respondent No.1. Even, husband of respondent No.1 was also present at the time of counting of the votes and as per statement filed before the Election Tribunal by the Presiding Officer, the recounting was done thrice and the result was the same. Notice of motion was issued and respondents appeared through their respective counsel and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record including the impugned order.

(3.) The perusal of the impugned order dated 21.07.2014 shows that only ground for recounting of votes given in the order is that counsel for the petitioner (present respondent No.1) asked for the recounting so that it may satisfy them. Learned Presiding Officer further stated in the order that by recounting of votes, the petition can be decided expeditiously as per law. The petitioner (present respondent No.1) has raised objection that counting has not been done correctly. The opposite counsel told that votes were counted correctly and in the presence of the petitioner, so the objection of the petitioner is baseless. It is further stated in the order that on hearing both the parties, it is felt that there is a objection of wrong counting in the petition, so the record of the village relating to the petition be called and the proceedings for recounting be undertaken and file for recounting be presented on 06.08.2014 and further parties are directed to be present in the Court along with their counsel at the time of recounting. The perusal of this order itself shows that it is a nonspeaking order. Recounting cannot be allowed only on the ground that counsel urges that recounting be done to satisfy a party. It is no ground for ordering recounting.