THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5328 of 2009 ORDER: Elections to the Kondayapalli Gram Panchyat, Kamalapuram Mandal were held on 29.07.2007. The petitioner and the 1st respondent contested to the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner secured 254 votes and the first respondent, 50 votes and accordingly, the petitioner was declared as elected. The first respondent filed election O.P.No.2 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, challenging the election of the petitioner. It was urged that initially he was declared elected and thereafter, on intervention of the local M.L.A., the results were changed. In the election O.P., he prayed for the reliefs of recounting of votes and setting aside the election of the petitioner held on 29.07.2007. It was also prayed that further relief as would be necessary in the interest of justice be granted. The trial of the O.P. commenced. When it reached the stage of arguments, the first respondent filed I.A.No.41 of 2009 with a prayer to appoint an advocate-commissioner to recount the votes. The petitioner did not file counter affidavit. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal allowed the I.A. through its order, dated 11.09.2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is no doubt true that an order directing recounting of votes cannot be passed as a matter of course and a specific finding as to the irregularity or mistake, that has crept into the election process and warranting recounting of votes, must be given by the Tribunal, before recounting is ordered. In the instant case, recording of evidence was concluded. It was open to the Tribunal to pass an order directing recounting of votes after hearing the arguments and on its being satisfied that recounting is necessary. However that necessity is obviated on account of the fact that the petitioner is said to have offered during the course of his evidence that recounting of votes be done before the arguments are heard. Apart from that, in his cross-examination, he stated that he has no objection for recounting of the votes. Added to this, when the first respondent filed application for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for recounting of votes, the petitioner represented that he has no counter to file to the application. The cumulative effect of all these developments is that the petitioner did not have any objection for recounting of votes. Therefore, there did not exist any necessity for the trial Court to discuss the evidence to find out whether a case is made out for recounting the votes. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. However, certain precautions need to be taken while recounting is done. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of directing that- (a) the order under revision is upheld; (b) the Tribunal shall fix a day for recounting of votes in the premises of the Court itself under its supervision and with the assistance of the election staff duly addressing a letter to the District Collector to depute an experienced person for this purpose; (c) the objections if any that may be raised by the petitioner or the first respondent, shall be taken into account, before the result of the recounting is declared; and (d) the Tribunal shall pass final orders in the O.P. within one week from the date of completion of recounting, duly taking into account the result thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 19.04.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5328 of 2009 Date: 19.04.2010 JSU