FAO No.244 of 2006 ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 12.02.2008. Gurjit Singh ... Appellant Versus Smt.Balbir Kaur and others ... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RKS Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rahul Lakhanpal, Advocate,for respondent No.1. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This appeal is against the order dated 23.03.2005 passed by the Election Tribunal, Presiding officer-cum- Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Ludhiana, rejecting the election petition filed by the present appellant for setting aside the election of respondent No.1 as Sarpanch of village Narangwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The appellant herein was a candidate for the post of Sarpanch for which election was held on 29.06.2003 at village Narangwal. The challenge is based upon the fact that earlier at the time of counting, the appellant was declared as elected with a margin of 32 FAO No.244 of 2006 ( 2 ) votes. Later on, one Jagpal Singh Khangura who belongs to the Congress Party came at the spot and pressurised the Returning Officer and, thereafter, the Retuning Officer declared respondent No.1 elected with a margin of one vote. It is alleged that respondent No.1 is stated to have secured 771 votes, whereas the appellant is stated to have received 770 votes. It is further alleged that the election of Sarpanch is vitiated on account of corrupt practice having been adopted by respondent No.1 by distributing alcohal, poppy husk, opium etc. to influence the voters. The Returning Officer, who is respondent No.2 in the Election Petition filed his written statement. He denied the allegations and stated that at no stage any request of re-counting was made. Respondent No.1, the elected candidate also filed her written statement denying all the allegations made in the Election Petition. The main emphasis of the appellant before the Tribunal was that he requested for recounting of votes at the time of declaration of result, but his request was not accepted. Later on, an application before the Deputy Commissioner was filed on 12.07.2003 and another application dated 04.07.2003 was given to the Election Commission, Punjab, for recounting of votes. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the application filed before the Election Commission, Punjab, the appellant has not mentioned that he had applied for or request for recounting had been made to the Retuning Officer. The Retuning Officer also denied that any such request was made to him. The Tribunal, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the election FAO No.244 of 2006 ( 3 ) petitioner has failed to prove that he applied for recounting of votes at the time of declaration of the result as per requirement of Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the election petitioner has failed to establish that the election is vitiated by corrupt practice and consequently dismissed the election petition vide the impugned judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant wanted to produce some rules to show that recounting can be ordered even if no request is made to the Retuning Officer. However, despite affording opportunities, the appellant failed to produce any rules in support of his abovesaid contention. Recounting of votes cannot be ordered just at the asking of the candidate. It has to be on some valid reasons. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, there is no valid reason for recounting of votes. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 12.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO FAO No.244 of 2006 ( 4 )