CM No.10809-CII-2010 and - 1 - FAO No.1726 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.10809-CII-2010 and FAO No.1726 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 29.04.2010 **** Bhag Rani . . . . Appellant VS. Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat, Guru Har Sahai and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.10809-CII-2010 Allowed as prayed for. FAO No.1726 of 2010 This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies-cum-Election Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short ‘the Tribunal) whereby, election petition filed by petitioner Bhag Rani was dismissed after recounting of votes in which she has been found to have secured 10 more invalid votes out of total 177 polled votes. The recounting was done in the presence of following persons : - “(i) Smt. Bhag Rani, petitioner; (ii) Shri Prem Kumar, husband of Geeta Rani respondent No.2, CM No.10809-CII-2010 and - 2 - FAO No.1726 of 2010 (iii) Sh. H.L. Chhabra, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, (iv) Shri Baldev Singh, Returning Officer, respondent No.1, (v) Shri Jugraj Singh, Panchayat Officer, (vi) Shri Chanda Singh, Panchayat Secretary, (vii) Shri Gaurav Vohra, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2, (viii) Shri Tona, Pardhan V. Motiwal, and (ix) Shri S.P. Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. On the other hand, three more valid votes were found in favour of the returned candidate-Geeta Rani (respondent No.2), by which her polled valid votes raised from 178 to 181. The learned Tribunal has also observed that votes of other candidates were also counted in which Mahesh Kumar, who had earlier polled 39 votes, was found to have 40 valid polled votes. As a result of which, the learned Tribunal has found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the allegations made in the election petition and was rather a sufferer because while claiming recounting of votes it has been ultimately found that 10 votes, which were wrongly counted at the time of initial counting, were in fact invalid votes because of double stamping. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the procedure of recounting as the same has not been done by recording the same through videography. It is submitted that an objection was raised orally at the time when the alleged 10 votes were found to be invalid to the effect that at the time of initial counting those 10 votes were found to be valid and at the time of recounting, the bundle, in which polled votes were there, was found to be opened. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. CM No.10809-CII-2010 and - 3 - FAO No.1726 of 2010 There is no procedure prescribed under the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 or the Punjab Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 of covering the process of recounting by way of videography. Therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is neither here nor there and has to be simply rejected. Insofar as the second argument is concerned, there are no written objections raised by the appellant, although, she was accompanied by her Advocate at the time of recounting of votes. Therefore, this court does not find any truth in the allegation that the objection was in fact raised, though, oral at the time of recounting of votes when the bundle was found already opened. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 29.04.2010 JUDGE Vivek