IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8234 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 03.12.2008 Smt. Meena .... PETITIONER Versus Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gurgaon and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, a defeated candidate, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment dated 20.3.2008, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the election of respondent No.3, the returned candidate, has been dismissed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the scope of his arguments only to the portion of the impugned judgment, whereby prayer of the petitioner for re-counting of the votes has been declined by respondent No.1. We have heard learned counsel CWP No. 8234 of 2008 -2- for the parties on this issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the observations made in para 16 of the impugned judgment, submits that in cross-examination, the petitioner has stated that light of the counting room was switched off and therefore, due to the darkness, some illegalities were committed in counting of votes. It is further case of the petitioner that during the course of counting, 30 votes in her favour were arbitrarily and illegally declared invalid. The learned Tribunal, while taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to disclose that 30 votes, which were declared invalid, were belonging only to the petitioner. In the elections, the petitioner secured 469 votes, whereas respondent No.3 secured 493 votes and the margin of votes in the present case is 24. It has been observed that in absence of any material showing that there was an illegality in the counting of votes, the prayer of re-counting of votes made by the petitioner could not be accepted. We do not find any illegality in the said part of the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 03, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE