'Nigasa'i HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .*. & Parvatia VERSUS rt Post for order on V7r"April, 2007 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge € .K. OF AT S.B. : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI WRIT PETITION No. 1571 of 2006 PETITIONER : Parvatia W/o Raai Pr&sad Aeed about A ^. V-=--3 "c "D sr\ \T:i. i 1 ^- 'pn^ "^ o^.~'3+ -r\j i ciix's rvu viii Cw ^G.iywiiirv&i GoviBvan P.S. Bilaisarh. Distnct J;—,-^//^ /"s. \ Kaipur {\^.\j.) v'Eitsus' RESPONDENTS : 1. Padmiai W/o Jasannstli Kaiaar 2. Geeta devi W/o Rajesh Satnami ' 3. Darunadi Bai Widow /o Santram. Caste Gada 4. Jankibai w/o Labhoram Caste Sahu. 5. Renuka W/o Raman Sinah Caste Thakur 6. Hembai W/o Hemlal Caste Kalaar 7. Presidine Officer. Pollina Bootli No. 114- ' 8. Presidias OfScsr. Pollina Booth No. 9, Returnine Officer Cum Navab Tahsildar The. Bilaiearh. Distt T? oi-iiir fC' C- \ i'i^y..i uu-i { "L^ ;'\3's lO.Sub-DivisioDal OfScer, Bilaigarh, Jjistt. .Kaipur^L-.u-.) 11 .M.D.Kanvra. Sub Divisional Oincer. Tahsi! Bilaigarh- District Raipur P Cr .«^j. II.T: T^Tl'-s-: ARTICLE ?r-S~!'7 T'^'TT.-^'ii.'Si." AAA'tJ'A'AOl^ li'iU'lA 'TTT? ^~^ AN APPROPRIATE 'W NAT?'1317 OF MANnAMTJS/fKRTIOHA13Y IRTf^ . ^—-i ^l _~^ ^i- ^..: iiL'^..S-l '!*~J^.' -^' A.-—S.-^ .£^yj~3^^'S-\^'' i~3; 'tt^^A;..^.^- ^- ^-'t^'i.'-i-^~S-A.'°is. ^. 3.:-1 .1 'i.^-o T^ 'S'^'S T^ ^f l/lKli.t-il'rsvryTi-m; d'&g/a* s:^; •' S'S 'S Si' ^ ^»/'3i' •ai.^ ;-. ^?-7H/3^i^ljl^£v ij.^ li:liL A^liyi:; i'N--^ T T's'.'7rT71 '.'°-" .4 "T'ZT?^! TT' TT'T'-!?"" r T-ST^'l.CP:'r^1 rCI^'^.S ; Shri Raiesh Paiidsv. Advocate with Shri RaJcesh ] Aavocate tor tlis petitioaer. Shri B.D.Guru. Advocate fbr resriondent no. 1, Shri Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate for uiaev. ~ J '• np; rFls:'s'^f^rir!s'si's' J. '•vi^V-^?il.\ii''^li 1 n onr <-/ dil1- ('Passed on f7^ayof.April-200' The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Govinvan, Tahsil Bilaigam, District Raipur m the e2ectioc held oa 15.01.2005. after drawing a lot on 18.01.2005 bv the ReturniBe OfGcer, as the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 secured equal numbsr ofvotes i.e. 365-365. The resDondent no. 1 filed election netition under fhe Drowsions of section 122 ofthe Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1993) on '^ 1 '? Q^r^'^ K^'ff'^r'p1 thp> ,£ir^;a^'1i^<=a/-1 OtTir'.^'r •i Fh th^ %-';n T^h'";,'i£';/^n^1 , -\/y^ iJS;l^lS: liiS OpS^.'llACU. ^^lli^Sl 1>G. t.liS i3i.^U i,.^iVJ.Siy^i<Ai OfScer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur. The petitioner filed her written staTsment to the election netition aiid submittsd soscificailv that the petitioner and fhe rsspondent no. 1 had secured equal votss and with the consent of respondent no. 1, the result was declared on account of draw of lots. Respondent no. 1 did not raise aiiy obiection to ths orocedure ofdraw oflots. Thereafler the SDecified officer. without framing issues and without condiicting the n'ia! of tlie case, dirscted for recoucting of votes. The said order was imnuened in W.p. No. 3187 of 2006 ('Parvatia vs, padmini & Others). This Court, vide order dated 31.8.2005, set aside the order passed by the Specified Ofncer and directed the Specifled officer to nroceed with 'the matter aild decide the satlie after eiviniz opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce their evidence and cross examiae the witnesses of the other Darties. The Sub Divisional Ofiicer. Thereafter. framed issues and examined the evidence adduced bv both the Darties and after considerina. cams to the conciusion that fhe son of tlie oetitioner consratiilated fhe soii 01 Uie resoondent no. I wliicfa ied mto victorv nrocsssion on fiie basis that counting slaps of poiliiig station no. 1 14 and 115 was not siven to all tiie asents sxceot to the son ot tne netit'oner, Accordmglv, the Sab Divisional Officsr direoted recouating of votes polied m polling station no. 114 and 115 ofGram Panchayat Goviavaii vide order dated 21.03.2006 (AasexBre P/l) Being aggrisved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner vide this petition has, challsnged fhe legality and validin' oftlie impagned order. Shri Raiesh Pandsv. Isained counsel aonearinB for tiie Detitioaer would submit ihat tfae Soecified Ofiicer has directed recountine of votes without anv aoolication made for the same durine countins of votes before the appropriate authority. The order passed by tte 'ipecitied autiionty is contrary to tae pnncipies 01 recounting ot votes as laid down by fhe Supreme Court ia various cases. The rsspondent no. i lias acquiesced tor re-counting ot votes as resposdent agreed fbr declaratios of result by draw of lots without anv demur. Tfie netition ousht to liave besn dismissed on the ground of lack of material facts ana proper pleadings regarding in'eeularities atid illeealities committsd in tiie coiiDtine of votes. The verificatioii ofthe election netition was also aot in accordance Shri B.D.Guru. leamed coimsei ao'osarins for the resnondent no. 1 wouid submit that tfae contention of the ostitioner that the verification ofths electicm petition was not in accordance with 'aw, could not be permitted to be raised at this stage when the petitioner has not raised the, said ground ia ihe election petitioa. Secondly, the aroiind of lack of material facts was also not raised ic tlie o, election petition seeking for dismissal of the electicm petition. Oa other grounds it was coiiteiided that the sufEciest opportuniT1.' of hearing was aot giveii to the respondeats to raise the issue, and even otherwise the respondent no. 1 is not debarred from raising issue of re-countins of votes after the result bv draw of lots has been declared. I have heard the Isamed counsel aDDeariHs for tlie narties. Derused the ^pleadiags acd documents appended thereto. The question of maintainability ofelection petition on account ofic&action ofRule 5!a) and fc) of C.G. Panchavats ('Elsctioa Petitions. CorTuot Practices and Disqualificatioa for Membership) Ruies, 1995 I'hereinafter referred to as "the Ru'es. 1995""l was not raised nefbre the Specified OiS.cer. The verification was not in accordsmcs with law was also not raised either befbre ths Specified OfBcer or in the pleadings be&re this Court. The respondent no. 1 in her election petition has pleaded the matsrial facts as imder: "6. 'STs fe 'Silad; 14»rj'f rTOT' ••S'f.fS W"sfasT A STuT ftuTS UICTTH 't? ^pafw 'uTT^ A aT3' .Sl'TTi'fe^n' 'snfai i TRX'RRIT ®B~r?T S,PT4 V^. ^t" ?|°>^S*IR "lt fS? TiT. 11. ^5t'FSqa.i 'aiT 's^ fffiv sfi wffifff. Tf^S, <! rfrffrrfR s,'-}&'g:Tfr snT^so; mTitm .? ^?a a ^ ?lfn'ITT3 W. %raT Tj-aff 'RiTB^ ^""f^ ^aa ''ftsRft'T wtSrerRat' ^ c'RT ^R'i'ss te3'F'sn sTfSrs'rf! -lsivH^"3T^ ^S "^PJST ^l !~4Tf ^T^TT^I" ~G~^S5 -^?HTI" cr^rt ^"^ '3TET3:TY7 c:^'r~S eS-^TI^B' ^S" • '" ^l • '•• *' • • - - -• • •j 14 ^' "•'i'rf^aijiiufT mf 1-59 '$ ^uTra 2 ^RT w" iRt? 157 4T5' ^Tc" aiy'TT sr?T ^f&^T ?raT t '"»TaTisr IfT? 35 '^ 'KaM 'q? 2 TrrT 'SsN?3 37 '^r'i -^f^r[ ^r^ f^TT TrSJ ^ | g^fl' ^T?? '3^T^7T? '^'^ '^•Jit^ 115 ^" ST*TTa'fSzKT t6-ffre> 1 ITW&reT ^t V'T^ igg a-l^ tfi va-'M ir? -.170 'af? ^7]To?? 1T®•at^ STfea; 'asr firar TRiy ^ rTs.n' sitta' 'ffrff cA TsngT 41 ait ^d i -ats api '3i?A 40 ^te ST'ftirI n^ f^ST Tf-ar sfN §'•" rRg' 1TrauTra;rTi' rfW SRra'p^qiT ^'BTu} I '4ijd|(TS(T if,S iR^Wi sRTa"? 365 i65 ^t'C VFfg Kt=Y ^S TfvfQ va wgq^ ~qvf viHSsffS ^aTT ^HITSJ u^an TI^?T?T f!ff fSTTf VSI ; ''RipH^ SiTETr? TT? fr"t 1S 1 9!VV-, ^t ZTrfesTtBrff * 'r sqi •aneii.eui si * "nj A. qnies siu: JO, E'-'.^es:^ i uo IHS3S Sl S3SOA ^O 1UH033-1 J01JBDJ piOtjSSJLi^ leys: 'Sl. ^S^! 'SSiQA iFi l. iLj^ UO JBUOilRSd Uplp pBplAOJQ ®4± ,(ysq .^^ ^K.". U8 AQ p93^|0 ip sj^i; "•" '~'s' Aq pSplAOJCl eq p|noqs SB+OA ,0 lUn03SJ JO ;tJ-i\ inijlieq ff\' JO SU1 ue joj uojiesyiKnf SLJI 'AJBJ^UOS sij^ uo 4U"033j 31(4 io ijnssj au^ Aq pue ^uBjspuiu J3D 3Q O^ IOU Sl Se^OA 10 4Un038J PUB SJeded uojieujujexs joj jepjo us joi uoueoujisn? Si AAB, ,0 UOIiiSQd pSjBSS 341 snui •ET». : jsputi SB paAjssqo 'u^c oos l (6861) 'Hsspuiqop^ reTiiclC(»p{ pS['V"5 'A 'ti99pnsiuBqs'5['3-a jo ss-eo ai 'unoo 8UISjdng 8qj_ •u3I]13S [pAl SI SSIOA jo giiqando 04. pjeggj ui .we~[ "iiisjsq psig uouasa sq^ Lll JOU JSUOtlpSU 3ul AQ p8[a V.SSUISlBlS USljJJAA. Sq} lil pssrej jsuiisii SBA4. p% •p8lU33lI03 SI tIOI^OgUSA Ul p3J3p 9tp SB JBI Og •S3p& jo gaqanoosj jojjsipj o'i pj-Bg3j.ipiA\ sjBpioiiiBd pu-e spCT reuaiKttt pspBsp sisu '[ 'ou ^uspaodssj 3lp ffilp lUSptAS Sl }.t 'uoq.psd aoipsp sip jo psiuad [IQ 'psairoBxg SJSM ssoirepiAS sq^ •HoireogusA ui sisysp aqi spB]: puspiu jo 3'[OB[ 03. psissiqo xou SBq (g/j ejnxsaav) £OOZ'£'£Zps p lUSuiSTOS aau.uM jsq Hi 'jsuoqqad sq^ •fi !!??."3' ^^E!^ S;p:\ ??^iSH-' i:-a. --t igh l-: ^-^ qsi ys^ H r?- SP r?u-K ?BLC&| 12-; i". Di.-i I^-i.in FE- EA ^^ f^i^- t~. l ir^ ^^ -^,,S, Ty' »...~Ii1.i^ .^.£.?..lf.. JL-C^l. & ^ >• ''-' "' ^J^S—'~?^'-? i~*—l "' ~ 5" ? t k kI t E L tsa l&h i^a ick p lig £h ahl>& jo f-bpbiilr 'h 'Hs. <Bl 3" "S ^..... ^-.-..... -^_ ^^_ _ ^.^"-—: t^3''\," lAit?.^ i^ j^jj^i^i j^_ lI^MMMi l^^lMkte Mi£ ^ tt?|p ipj^ ^^ ^<k ^—7-rf—.. i.^—(-. ^"" • 1.* ^—^b^-...J...AA. J.—t—^—^,-^—1—^—L.l/ ^-^^JlL^i' l^" -t-ILa—LA^ ^iJ.—*J^^ ^..^JC^ —'; _'_ ~E-i s ^- •<& t&yifa^JS- ^y3l <y. ^fl ^ ilMl ife<y ^i&{2i<& uk &&sii.t ijja ^ tnMii MtysJ. aij^ U^AI && us Is&a SJg. Ib ?E £3-^ EU'V . ffiiiia is'sjsii'K U!»P aa i ICLK. IEU 1 tE. ttlj± (& iili ? U^LS^ ? t^ ^y^? S^. 1S± i^S IlUt ItuIlB ^k ^e. ^i^ilea. Iptny ^ alb ^ isJ^Byi 4'a |U(Bltt>ll!|t,. tOIBIft IRb |r?»3i il^ t(*P![n fc H;l£ 1;^ l&iiiEMl I'nSl&il-IS Aa isii. RS PMP i^lfciiLi"? 2>4IS -U^t ly. i^ltSt M».& .[M2 iMa 123k $2 licj^jpi'h i. <&ltt:3» jlo^DlMe i^ya / tH9 O^iiOI ;S 3 preservation of the secrecv of sacrosand principie whlch cannot be Jjghtly or hastliy broken unless there is Drima facSe aenulne need for jt. The right of a defeated candidate to assaii the vaiidity of an eiection resulf and seek recountlna of votes has to be subiect to the basic principle that the secrecy of the bailot is sacrosanct in a democracy aHQ HSHCS UHISSS ttls SuSCtsCl CSndtQStS i£ aul^ r0 .^il^d^ snri ^i.ib^t'^nt'ist^ in ^rrpnTshl^ n"<?s.^^ijr?s hv a^^'S?^: ^^^ •^U^^^id'SiiLi^^^ ilS £3\^lm-^^^^h^i^S ;! S%^^1 U ^ 'i^ mssns or sviosncs insi, 3 prifTiB rsct^ cas'3 o: 8 "IQH degree of probability existed for t'na recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal In the interests of justice, a Tribuna! or court should not order the recount of votes." m cas of M. Chianasamv v. K.C. Palanisainv.f2004j 6 SCC 341 me Supreme Court held as uiider; "28. The iaw operating in the fieid is no longer res iutsQfa. i.nSpSCT.IGH Ot" Da II 01 pspSFS C3H DS Qfu8r^0 when in the facts and circumst&nces obtalnina in the case, the Tribunai finds it necsssary to so dlract in the Interest of justice. Discovery and mspection of documents with which ths civjl court is invested with power under the Code of Civi! Procedure when trying a suit may be appiied but such an order wouid not be granted as a matter of course havina regard to the tnsjstence upon the secrecy of the baliot papers. Such may be ordered when two conditions are s" inspection fuifiiied: ( ; ) that the petition for settlng aside an eiedion contains an adeauate statement of the materiai facts on which the oetitioner reiies In suDDOrt of his case; 'i- ana { 'i ) the Tr'buna' is prima facie satisfied that In order to declde the dispute and to do comp'ete justice between the parties inspectlon of the baiiot papers is necsssary. In case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. the Susreine Court faas held as undsr: al:eofBihar(2004)6SCC. "20. .h is well settied ihaf an ordsr of rs-countins ofvotss caii be passed whea the foilowine conditions are fulfilled: fi) a nnma tacie case: (ii) pleading of material facts stating irregularities in eouiitins ot votes: (iii) a roving and fishine inquiry shali not be made while directina re-countins ofvotes: and ^^te^^ilSm 7 (rv} an obiection to the said effect has been taken recourse to. 21. The requirement of maintaming the secrecy ofballot papers must also be kept in view before a re-counting can be directed. Narrow margin of votes bet^veen the retumed candidate and the election petitioner by itself vvould not be sufficient for issiiing a directioii for re-countins. In the case of Gursewak Singh v, Avtar Singh (2006) 4 SC the Suoreme Court has held as under: "22. Ths said dicta has been reiterated in M.Chinnasamy v, K.C.Palanisamy, Hoshila Tiwari v. State ofBihar and Tanaji Ramchaadra Nimhan v. Swati Vinayak Nimnan. The reasoa vvhv we rsferred to the said decision is that at sver/ level. in case of a challenge to an electioa, pleadings of the parties have been held to play a sisnificant role." 13 The decision of this Court in Ramdeo Ram Vs. Vijaynath acd others, 2007(1) CJLJ 215, relied on by the leamed counssl appearmg for the petitioner is of no help to the present case as in the present case, ao objsction was raised at aiiy poiat oftime either in tlie election petitioa or in the writ petition with regard to la&k ot' material facts or incomplete verificatioii as per law. ft is clear from ths law laid down bv the Supreme Court in various cases cited above that the election petmoner must prove proper pleadings in order to seek relief of recounting of votes. In the present case, oa perusal of the writ petition. it appears that ihe Detitione.r has sufScisntlv 'oleaded the material fact.s for grant of reliefofrecounting ofvotes. f7 15. I am ofths considered opiaion that the order ofrecounting ofvotes directed bv me SDecified Officer on the basis of Dleadinss and 011 the evidences adduced by the parties is just and proper and needs no interfereiice by this Coiirt. 16. In visw ot the above. this ostitioa stands dismissed. Sd/- , ,, SatishKAgn^om Judge