MISHRILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dhanop Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura District Bhilwara has laid this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2015 (Annex. 6) rendered by the Additional District Judge, Shahpura District Bhilwara (for short 'the learned Election Tribunal'). By the impugned judgment, the learned Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition of the forth respondent - election petitioner under Sec. 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules of 1994') and ordered recounting of votes within 45 days for facilitating fresh declaration of the result of election.

(2.) Stated in succinct, the factual matrix giving rise to this petition are that forth respondent submitted an election petition under Sec. 43 of the Act read with Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 questioning the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dhanop before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara. The learned District Judge, Bhilwara transferred the election petition to the learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura District Bhilwara and thereupon it has acted as Election Tribunal in the matter. In the election petition, precisely, the forth respondent has averred that Returning Officer has committed serious irregularities in counting of votes and at his whims and caprice found that petitioner has polled more votes than the forth respondent for declaring him elected as Sarpanch. Pointing out serious illegalities/discrepancies in the counting of votes as per the version of the forth respondent, he as well as his agent submitted written objection for recounting but without considering the same, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner elected as Sarpanch. As per the result, the forth respondent polled 710 votes whereas the petitioner, the returned candidate, polled 718 votes. Besides that, the votes polled by other candidates who were in fray are also incorporated in the pleadings. The forth respondent has specifically pleaded in his election petition that during counting of votes, he was present with his agent and the petitioner was also accompanied by his agent but neither he nor his agent was allowed to have access with the votes during their scrutiny. A plea is sought to be raised in the election petition that after counting of votes at the threshold, he was declared elected by 42 votes but at the request of the petitioner, the Returning Officer proceeded for recounting and in the recounting of votes, the petitioner is declared elected by a margin of 8 votes. Questioning the process of recounting of votes, the forth respondent has averred in the election petition that during recounting of votes, he as well as his agent were not allowed to see the number of votes polled by each candidate. In substance, the allegation of the forth respondent in the election petition was that process of recounting was a farce and the entire result was manipulated and maneuvered by the Returning Officer to petitioner's advantage. Harping on 40 votes, which according to the forth respondent, were polled by him but not counted in his favour, has materially effected the result of the election is set out a plausible ground for recounting. That apart, the forth respondent has also submitted in the election petition that his two valid votes were illegally rejected by the Returning Officer. In his election petition, the forth respondent has pleaded that he submitted written objections against counting of votes but his objections were not paid any heed and the result of the election was declared. The forth respondent has castigated the Returning Officer and his subordinates that they have counted votes in an absolutely arbitrary manner and their modus operandi in counting of votes has vitiated the entire counting process. A yet another improved version is also projected in the election petition by the forth respondent that his written complaint was not accepted by the Returning Officer de hors the law. It is on the strength of all these allegations, the forth respondent has craved for recounting of votes and declaring election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dhanop null and void.

(3.) The election petition is contested by the petitioner as well as by the Returning Officer. The petitioner in his reply to the election petition refuted all the averments contained in the election petition. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that after counting of votes, he was declared elected and the entire counting process was carried out by the Returning Officer impartially and dispassionately. The allegation of the forth respondent that against counting of votes, any objection was submitted on his behalf for recounting is also countered by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted in the return that entire election petition is based on vague, cryptic and wholly concocted facts and, therefore, no case for recounting of votes is made out. The forth respondent's specific allegation that his valid 40 votes which are not counted is also aptly dealt with by the petitioner in his reply. In this respect, the petitioner has specifically submitted that all these facts are false and fabricated. In totality, categorising all the allegations in the election petition as omnibus allegations, the petitioner has prayed for rejection of election petition.