NARAYAN DUTT Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Churu in election petition No. 4/95 by which the learned Addl. Distt. Judge ordered for recounting of the votes that were cast in election of ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar, Distt. Churu.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be recalled. The election to ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar, Distt. Churu was held on 27.8.1995. The petitioner contested the above election. After completion of the voting, the result was declared on 28.8.1995 by the appropriate authority and the petitioner was declared duly elected to ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar Municipal Board. In due course, the petitioner was also elected as the chairman of the Municipal Board, Ratan Nagar. On 26.9.1995, the next defeated candidate, respdt. No. 1 filed an election petition Under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') before the learned Distt. Judge, Churu. The election petition was filed on insufficient stamp papers, but, deficiency was made up by respondent No. 1 later on. It appears that the learned Distt. Judge thought it proper to transfer the above election petition from his file to the file of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge and passed an order accordingly. He also directed the parties to be present before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge on 4.11.1995. The petitioner contested the petition and filed reply to the petition on 3.7.1996. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 9 issues were framed on 24.7.1996. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge ordered to decide issues nos. 6, 7 and 8 and arguments were heard. By the impugned order, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge was of opinion that looking to the margin of win, it was necessary in the interest of justice recounting of the votes cast in the election. He, therefore, ordered recounting and fixed 21.8.1996 for recounting of the votes. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following two grounds, namely;

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand, supported the order of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge and submitted that the learned Distt. Judge did not contravene the provisions of Section 40 of the Act by transferring this election petition to the Addl. Distt. Judge. The Addl. Distt. Judge is a subordinate to him.