RAKHI KAUR Vs. GURMAIL KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Bathinda whereby recounting of votes has been ordered.

(2.) The election of the Gram Panchayat of Village Gehri Devi Nagar was held on 29.6.2003. The petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the said election. The petitioner obtained the highest number of votes and was declared elected as the returned candidate. Gurmail Kaur (respondent No. 1) filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, Prescribed Authority, Bathinda constituted under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (Act for short). The petitioner contested the said election petition filed by respondent No. 1. In terms of order dated 4.2.2005, the Election Tribunal ordered recounting of the votes. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 941 of 2005 which was allowed by this Court on 7.4.2005 and the order dated 4.2.2005 was set aside and a direction was issued to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision on recounting in accordance with the statute and law thereof. The learned Election Tribunal in pursuance of its impugned order dated 30.9.2005 has reconsidered the matter and ordered the recounting of votes. For this purpose, the record was ordered to be summoned by the learned Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal for 24.10.2005. The said order dated 30.9.2005 as already noticed is assailed in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely illegal and has been passed in utter disregard to the guidelines laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 was liable to show by leading cogent and convincing evidence that a bona fide dispute and some grounds existed for questioning the legality of counting. Besides, it is contended that the election petitioner is liable to lay a firm foundation of fact duly supported by evidence to make out a case for recounting and only then recounting was to be ordered. It is contended that mere violation of a provision would not warrant the recounting of votes and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mere small margin of votes between the winning and loosing candidates, it is contended, cannot be made a ground for recount of votes.