ROOP SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Annexure P.2 in the election petition filed by respondent No.2 before the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, as per grounds (d), (e), and (f), it was submitted that the writ petitioner was declared winner even though the counting was not yet completed. It was argued that the bundles of votes were not got checked even though he made such a request. The said respondent also alleged malafide against the counting staff in his election petition. It also appears that his request in terms of Rule 33 of the Punjab State Election Commission Rules, 1994, was turned down by the authorities. This Rule on reproduction reads as under:-

(2.) Under the circumstances, the Election Tribunal has ordered recounting of votes holding that it will not harm the interests of any party and rather the real picture would emerge before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner (winning candidate) vehemently submitted that under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, there is no provision for recounting. It seems that since Rule 33 provides adequate safeguards therefore, no specific provision for re-counting has been incorporated in the Act. Moreover, this Court in the matter of Gurtej Singh v. Darbara Singh, 2000 2 RCR(Civ) 525has held that to finally do complete justice between the parties and to avoid unnecessary protracted litigation, the order of re-counting is an effective and expeditious solution to the election petition. A somewhat similar view has also been taken in the matter of Mander Singh v. Mangal Singh, 2000 126 PunLR 835. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of recounting which has been passed after recording some evidence. Hence, this writ petition (being No 16613 of 2004), being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.