Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 4, 2011 Smt.Rajo .....Petitioner v. Smt.Kavita and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Bhadana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18583-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 2.5.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hathin, Palwal, Annexure P1, vide which application filed by applicant-petitioner for recounting of votes polled for Panch of Gram Panchayat Mandori, regarding booth No.6, Ward No.7, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Radha Kishan v. The Election Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, Hissar, 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 79, and argued that a detailed enquiry is not required before ordering for recounting Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011(O&M) -2- of votes under Section 176(4) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and that recounting can be ordered only if the Court is satisfied that prima facie case exists. So far as this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute. There is also no dispute regarding legal proposition held by Full Bench of this Court in Radha Kishan's case (supra). However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that recounting cannot be ordered on mere asking of petitioner. Petitioner has to show prima facie material to the Court in support of his contention. Recounting cannot be ordered in every case in which petitioner challenges the election on his mere asking. Even in Radha Kishan's case (supra) it has been observed by Full Bench of this Court that recounting cannot be ordered on the mere asking. Relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:- “36 There can be no doubt as to the well established and settled position of law that secrecy of ballot-paper has to be maintained and the recounting of votes could not be ordered lightly or on the mere asking. The judgment relied upon by the parties mainly relates to the provisions of the Representation of People Act and the rules framed therein. A fair process and election has to be in a free and fair manner so as to attain to its protection or a sacrosanct process which normally would not be interfered by the Court. We have already held that the Courts are neither expected nor required to pass the order in a mechanical manner of on mere asking of an applicant. The Court has to satisfy itself that a prima Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011(O&M) -3- facie case exists and required averments supported by an affidavit (in accordance with rule) and some documents have been placed on record in support thereof which would justify invoking of the powers of the Court under Section 176(4) of the Act. Definite averments supported by an affidavit in accordance with rules and preferably some documents in support thereof would be sine qua non to the passing to an order for scrutiny and computation/recounting of votes by the Court considering the election petition.” Vide impugned order as well, learned trial Court has observed that mere pleading of petitioner is not sufficient to order for recounting and hence, the application for recounting of votes was dismissed as petitioner failed to show prima facie material to learned Court for the grant of his prayer. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the Civil Revision No.4691 of 2011(O&M) -4- error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.