Civil Revision No.2185 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2185 of 2010 Date of Decision:-27.04.2011 Jarnail Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus Harmander Singh & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the contesting respondent no.1. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Jarnail Singh, one of the elected Panches whose election was challenged by the contesting respondent Harmander Singh by way of filing of Election Petition, has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2010(P-1) passed by the learned Election Tribunal, Mukatsar whereby the recounting of votes of the petitioner and the Election Petitioner-respondent no.1 has been ordered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recounting dated 11.03.2010(P-1) has been passed in a illegal and Civil Revision No.2185 of 2010 #2# perfunctory manner and merely on the ground that the margin of victory between the elected petitioner and the defeated respondent was of only one vote and the rejected votes were 11. He further submits that it is settled principle of law that the recounting cannot be ordered on the mere asking but is to be based on making out a prima facie case on consideration of evidence on record. In support he has placed reliance upon Gurnam Bindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2008(4)RCR(Civil) 741, Udey Chand Vs. Surat Singh & Anr. 2009(4)RCR (Civil) 821 and Gurnam Bindra Singh Vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. 2010(4)Law Herald (P&H) 3299. On the other hand learned Counsel for the election petitioner submits that though sufficient evidence has been produced on record, however, he has conceded that while passing the order the essential requirements for ordering the recounting have not been clearly stated/spelt out. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent concedes that he has no objection if the order is set aside and the learned Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law provided the same is done within a particular time frame. Counsel for the Petitioner has no objection to such a proposal. In view of the aforesaid agreed stand, the impugned order dated 11.03.2010(P-1) of recounting is set aside with the direction to the learned Tribunal to pass a fresh order, if so warranted on the basis of the evidence on record in accordance with law. In view of the fact that election to the office of Panch were held on 26.05.2008, he is further directed to dispose of the election petition within 3 months from the receipt of certified copy of Civil Revision No.2185 of 2010 #3# this order. Disposed of in the above terms. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Vinay