THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.412 of 2010 Date: 05-02-2010 Between Kotturi Lakshmi Narayana … Petitioner/Respondent No.1 and 1. Mandava Rajesh … Respondent/Petitioner 2. D.Nageswara Rao and another … Respondents/Respondents 2 and 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.412 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The revision is directed against the preliminary order dated 27-01-2010 in Election Petition No.6 of 2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge cum Election Tribunal, Gudivada, Krishna district, wherein and whereby the Court below passed the impugned order the operative portion of which, is as under: “… … … 25. The Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered only after producing the election ballot papers by the concerned officials and only after completion of recounting as without completion of the said process it is not possible to answer the said two points. 26. IN THE RESULT, that respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to produce all the ballot papers including rejected and unused ballot papers and the ballot box in sealed condition and the counter foil book let which contains the signatures or thumb impressions of the concerned voters who casted votes in the election held for the post of Sarpanch of Serikalvapudi village and the entire relevant material without any tampering for recounting purpose, call on 8.2.2010.” 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the Court below, while arriving at the conclusion that the recounting was essential, directed the respondents 2 and 3 to produce the ballot papers including the rejected votes. Thus, his submission that there are about 10 votes which were rejected and that while recounting, the rejected votes cannot be subjected to counting at all and therefore, it is totally irrational on the part of the Court below to call for the objection of rejected votes also for the purpose of counting. In other words, it is the specific contention that the Court below was proceeding to count the rejected votes also. 4. But, I am unable to agree with the contention of the leaned Counsel for petitioner. There is no indication whatsoever in the impugned order the ground that the rejected votes also will be subjected to counting. 5. It is needless to notice that before subjecting any votes for recounting, the Court below shall record a finding that there are some votes, which ought not to have been rejected and also about the number of valid votes noticed from such rejected votes. Unless and until such conclusion is arrived at as to how many votes from such rejected votes are to be subjected to recounting, the Court below cannot, in all probability, go along with the recounting. 6. The learned Counsel for petitioner further contended that it is not the prayer of the respondents to count the rejected votes also. 7. In this regard, I am of the view that this Court cannot go into that aspect at this juncture, when everything is examination before the Court below. 8. Mere calling for the entire material regarding the election, for the purpose of recounting does not necessarily mean that the rejected votes or unused votes also will be subjected to recounting. Therefore, it is only the apprehension of the petitioner that such rejected votes also will be counted, in such an event, it may cause hardship to him. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no basis for such apprehension and even if there is any apprehension, it is premature for the petitioner to put on record. 10. Therefore, the revision does not call for any interference by this Court and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, it is made clear that in the event of contingency where the Court below passes an order about any such recounting of rejected votes or unused votes, as the case may be and if still there is any grievance for the petitioner, the same can be subjected to challenge later. 12. In the result, the revision is dismissed with the above observations, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th February, 2010. Ak