HSOH OOIXM.T QW' CHHA'TTSI s&.s, 'i^'ITi'^'iJ^ n' •yf^T- WiYitQS iCi Ho. W.P. 6S87/2-007 .CT n ^T?3 r^. •? ^ '•^r;'' MS^n S.ClS^nKST LiS-tlQTS SliQitibiiucia.vsi. L~?J:ISI"€'. o.sccl s^c^ux 3y vears, oartjaii.cli, iji'aiu i-'aiicuayal ^Sljl."£'SSr> 'i'eiTSll i\; S.VS.SQJ'il y^^smss, KES'-'UBS UEK'i't :•< fcitate ot •'JtinattisgarrL, Uirougli t&e •Seci^t.^iv. L/cosi'tiiidit QI Psiicl^-&vs.t aiyi social weilare Maiitraiava, D.K.y. Ron^y^n.. p^-ir'si'i'ir ^COl Rajkum.ar Didor", S/o Faduiu Lal Didor^- 30 vesrs- R/o villa^e Clieetapar,, Post aa-d Tel'is.U Navagarli, Uistnct Liurg {fUj Tl^e •St)£cifi£<l Qf¥ic£v-c12Tn ~Oivisioiisl uiuccr. t^eixiex.QTQ-. 'uisxnci. uurs ii.-/?<^jt O'-iT-v^Rr Sinc'n S^i^ Sl'i^ Tr.fti.'i^ST'ar, 61 years, K/if. '•/itl. Kdpn 'I'tie, nayagca'tl, Distt. Durg(CG) Fin r')oi.t~^T.]i ^^iiio.rg. -S-^o ISfliisiii'sui years, K/o viuage Kapn, Navagarli, Distt; Durs1' ;COi Diiiesh Kiusar, S.'o Shri Puliupdas, 37 y€-'cir3, R/ o vills-.ge CIicetRp£U\ Taij.- ^- Deepak Kuinar S/o BaasiJal Baiyare, 30 vcsirs. K ^ o villo^s I'Cs'Oi-i, I'C.I'LSU. M 6ivagax"!-i^ Uistt. Uurg {{->t^] S- Fvlsiiii'siiii. S/Q Slisjile&T •sJosi. 32 V££iTS, R/o vulage Cheetapar, Tehsil Navagarh -.^. ^- v^^^y Distt, Durff ?CGi Muazu'aju, S/o Sfct.iiUiTciiu Saliu, 50 vesxs. . K/Q vilXssc" ysjnessT. -'l^iisU N.a-Er^o-cirlt 1^fi«,tt. Fi-.-iro' (C'.C~r\ A^-'*-'" *-'"-A^ \~-"~-^} 10, Ramdas Maiakpuri, 3/o viiiage y^^Vi^.s.f>.Y Tfa.}i%^i NFsvp.&'p.rn D-is.tt. Oii^''u' Durg 1 1. 'RsnirM^.n- S^o ' villAi?^' Cb-."e te'oaj-''. Tchsil Navagaru, Distt. Durg (Cff. '&' Siliry ivuinai", S ?,:^ V(="aT-- ??/<" rm.f-ft.ssr 'i ^i'-s-^i r^^v&£'am. Uisrr, Dur^ icu-i dill't^TP^ - ??F'lfTi7T^1^ O. OfH^^T UIQCK "lavagam, uistt, uurg ^4.. Shi"!' D-S- Ra.tre. liistructin^ Officer. ITI . . Beiiiet&i^.; Di.stt. Durg (CG). ?S|T?^ i^ ^' 'S-'^TI'E i^.^itv.^~ir>t'!~s^.iy {'if't^r°iat" :T'. Oji-J.J--;. A^ii\t iJSL/^.^.-l.t iAAiSf U I^i.^ L.l.f.A.l; 'L./.L.i.Ji.^-t^.^. ^ ii i Fi.fa^-n.sfQ^Ca f^{<sf^ F^-.?^^ ^'"•<"^' *-/ '-'^-^ ?^ ^'-' ^-~ i' i^T£SeilT : ^llXl y.^, K&H.U, Acivocate lor uie pcutioiiei'r Sl^i"^ 1:?i..;-i?3'i"-}ri'i~'a A^?-i"a^x7.^il pcaT^^'1 r.siW^.r^^' 'tv~i?-tlif3 StsT.". siiri ^.u. veiTG.sip ricivoca.T^'^ IOT uie. respGiicicui i^o. '^. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTiTUTiO?'i OF 0^5-2008 SB; HON'BLE SHRI DHiRBNDRA MiSHRA.J This petition is directed against the order of Auuexure P-14 datea. '^'^-iU-'2,UUf passed Dy me ypecitied Utbcer-cum-yub Uivisional Officer, Beinetara-respoiident No. 3 whereby m. fhe election petition preferred agaiust election of fhe petitioner as Sarpanch of Graia Paachayat, Samesar, the application prcferred by Uie respondent No. 2 for recounting ofvotes has been ailowed. 2. BrieUy stated the facts of the case are fhat the respondent No. 2 presented election petiuon agaiast electioh of tbe petitioner as Sarpancti ot Urani fancnayat Samesar uiider ssecuon i'^'^ ol t&e Paachayat Ra] Adhnuyam., 1993 (for brevity, 'Act of l993r). in fh.e election petition proceedin.gs, fhe petitioner moved aii application for rejectmg the petition on certain grouuds. The application of the petiuouer was reiected vide Annexure P-4. Thereafter the petitioner tUed. a wnt petition bearmg 'W.f. No. 4uiu/^uua and t&is (Jourt viae oider dated 5-9-2005 aUowed Uie petition with a direction to the Speci&ed Officer to irame issue on fhe question laised by fhe petitioaer »-and decide the sanie as preluniuary issue ui accordance witih. law. Pursuant to fhe above order, issues were fi-amed on 27- 10-2005 to the eftect that as to wheth.er the election petition was m.amtainable under Rules 3 and 8 of fhe Panchayat Nuvachan Niyam, 1995 (For short, •rules of 1995^ read ^irith Section 122 of the Act of 1993. If it is mamtamable, recountmg be done aad result be declared after recoi.inttug. 3. The petitioner beuig aggrieved by tfae above order, ffled W.P. No. a&yi./'^uua and me aaove wnt peuuon was again disposecl ot Dy Uus Court vide order dated 6-12-2006 and fhe Specttied Ofiicer waa directed to coiuply witfa the order dated 5-9-2005 passed iuW.P. No. ;l :~^^ 4010/2005 iu its letter aud spirit and JTaine clear issues, speciivmg t&e prettmuiary issue aact issue on ment. 4. The petitioner ffled yet another petition W.P. (C.) No. 214/2007 as Uie Kpecitied Utticer witfiout assignuig aay reason t>y a non- speaking order dfaTected i-ecountmg of votes. This petitioa was aiso aisposea ot by tttis court victe orcter aated 0-2-^UU/ witB. Uie toUowuig ooservation;- "When evidence has alreadii been recorded by the Specxfied Qfficer, who atso heardfbvdly both ihe parfies, it was incumbent on his part to record oondusion in acoorciance wWt setltefl principles and taw iaid down bif Hon'bte the Apex Court from time to time wiih regard to recounmu] of vates. and to pass reasoned, speaKing orcler." 5. ln Uie ineantime, tiie Specitied Ofticer on ttie basis of onler dated 31-1-2007 proceeded with recouating ofvotes aad declared the result on 7-2-2007 whereby the respondent No. 2 was declared as elected by a margin ofone vote. This Court vide oider dafed 17-7-2007 of Annexure P-13, considering fhe fact that tiie order dated 31st JS&maiy, 2007 passed by fhe Specified Officer was aiready quashed, observed fhat recoitating of votes held on 6-2-2007 was wifhout any aut&onty ol law and quasfied. t&e same ana ttie inatter was reinaadea back for fresh hearing aad it was directed fhat fresh hearing be done by some other oificer who shall decide the laatter afresh after affording opportunity ol Geanng to au tne parfaes concemecl and pass tresti orders. 6. Tlie respondent No. 3 after heariug fhe parties, decided the petition vide iinpugned order of Attaexure P-14 aad the petition was disposed of wifh aa observation ftiat since the recount was made eai-uer in vas matter and DOUI tj&e parties were aware as to Aow majuy ^ votes Jiave been cast in ttieir tavour, BU Uiese ctrcumstances, tnere is no ofher altei-aative except to order recouut and accopdmgly, directed 7. Lcamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that fhe reasons assigned by the Specified Officer for ordeiing iccouiit of the baUet is without any basis, Eartier recount was done In contravention ol tlie order passed by fhis Court, considerkig fhe above fact, this Court vide oixler ot Annexure P-13 quastiea ttie recountmg ot votes lasld on O-^- 2007. in these circumsfances, fhe Specified OfBcer couid not inake the result ol tae earlier recoiint, basis tor passing iresti oraer ot recounting. Reliance is placed on M.CfaiuaasamT -v- K.C. Pataaisaa's' and otners1. 8. On the ofher haud, leamed counsel for the respondents coatended that the respondent No. 2 -election petitioner has made senous aUegations ui tbe eiecuon peUtiou regarcting inatpractices played by ftie petitioner aad the respondents No. 13 regarding inanipulation of fhe votes. The petitioner herein in his reply before the Blection Inbunal faas not controverted Uie aoove tacts nor flie fias adduced aav evidence before fhe Tribunal ia rebuttal. In these »- cu-cuinstances, unrebutted contenUons in Vae election peUtion Jiave been accepted by fhe Tribunal. Subsequent to fiie order of Aiuiexure P-14, the Specified OiBcer has passed order dated 24-10-2007 of Annexure Kf'2-7. Recountuig was done ia tiie presence ofme parties aud after recounting, it was afBrmed ttiat f&e petitioner seciu-ed 140 valid votes wnereas tne peuuoner HansliaaKar Latiare secured 139 votes aad accordingly the certiticate of election dated 18-1-2005 issTiea by tfie Ketummg Utticer was set aside ancl responaent No. 'i Raikuiiiar Didore was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram. r /^in-TL ,!';. -• (~u~i"i i .•11 iZUU^J o o^^. j^t i Paachayat Sainesar, Taflsu Navagarh and suice then, cha%e has already been haaded over to fhe icspondent No. 2. y. 1 liave neard teamed counsel tor me parues, 1 nave perused Uie pleadiags and docuiaents submitted by the respective parties. 10. The W.P.(C) No. 214/2007 was disposed ofby fhis Court with specific direction to the Election Tribunai to pass speakuig and reasoned orcler in accoKlance wit& law aucl settlecl pnnciples regarduig recoiinting of votes. Recount held on 6-2-2007 was quashed by tfiis Uourt witti aa ooservation ttiat recounttng was fielct on tue basis onler dated 31-1-2007 which was ak-eady quashed by fhis Court aad ttte matter was reuiitted to the Eiection Tribunal to decide the niatter atresb. after adordiag opportunity of hearing to ttie parties concemed. 11, Section 122 offhe Act of 1993, provides fhat tfae election under tiiis Act snall De catlea into question oiuy Dy a petiUon presented m. the prescnBea laai.uier to tlie Hub uivisional UBicer (Kevenue) ui case ot Urasa fancnavat. Kule /t> ot Uie Kules ot iyys> aeals wit& scruttuv and rejection ofbaUot papers whereas Rule 77 of the Rules of 1995 Ss; deals with coTintmg of votes. Sub-rules 2 of Rule 77 of fhe Rules of 1995 envisages that after the coimtmg of votes is coinpleted, the oHicer aumonzea tor couiiUng is to nialse enmes ui Uie resiUt stieet in Fonn 17 ui case of Sarpaach aad it also provides that such ofBcer shaU aanounce t&e total nuniber of votes polled by each candidate. Rule 80 deals with recount ofvotes. Sub-rule 1 ofRule 80 provides for tiluig appUcation by aay candKlate or ius electtou agent tor recountuig aOKi' anaouncement by Uie Ketuniing Utticer or omer auttionzea otticer, ot ttie total nuiaber ot votes pouea Dy eacn canaiclate uncter sub-rule (2) em.d sub-ruie (3) of Rute 77 statmg fhe grounds on which - such demaad of recount is made. A duty is cast upon such ofBcer to 1 ^ri?tW*n-v^-J- '—r^r 6 give tus aecision in wnting on Uie apptication ot recount by any canditlate. Eiub-rule & ot Kute KU envisages tttat atter Uie total nuniber of votes poHed by each caudidate has been annouiiced under sub-rule (^) ot Kule ( i or sub-rule (4) ot Kule yu, Uie otticer concenied is required to complete and sign the result sheet aad no application for a recouat stiaU De entertamed Uierealter, Uowever no step uiider sub- rule (5} is to De talcen until tne canaidate aud etecGon agents present at the coiupletion tfaereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right confen-ed by sub-rtde (1) ofRule 80 oft&e Rules ot' 1995. 12. !n. Uie aiatter of chaadrika Prasad Yadav -v- State of Bihar aa<t otaers'', ni paragi-aplis 20 an.cl '21, ttie Hou'bte yupreiae Court has heid Uius:- "^U. It is weit setlted ttuit an oraer 0} re-counting sf voles can t>e passed when tlw following oonditions arefulfilled: fi) a pnnw.faae case; fiy pleading of material facfs siai.mg in'eguiarities in couniinf) of votes; »- (m) a rouinf) and ftshing inquiry s'lvdl not be made while ctirecting recsunting of votes; anct fivj an objection to the said effecf fias &een taken recourse to. 21. 'ITw requiremera of maintairang ihe secrecy ofbaliot papers nwsi also be kepi in view before a re-aiunting can be directed. San'ow margin of voies between (he retuiTted cxtndidate and the eleciion pemwner by iisetf would noi be suffident for issuitig a airectionfor re-counttng." 13. Refen-uig to pai-a 42 offhe judgcaent ofM. CitinnasamT's1 case, it faas Deeu neia tnat it is obligatoiy on. Uie part ot ttie Ktection .A—••""•" 2 (2004) 6 SCC 331 SS iS S S "i'^-^"' ""-.'.. £.". •'v^'^ r, !Ti/ 'tes-i ^ 1 nbunal to arnve at a positwe tuading as to liow a pnma tacie case tias t>een inade out tor issuuig a direcuon tor recounnug. l-'ara 4^ ot M.Chinaasaaiy's1 case is reproduced herembelow:- ~42. Wiih respect, iye are not in a positwn to endorse ihe views taken therein in their entireiy. Urffortunaiely, ihe decasion of a larger Bendz of this Court in Jafjfit Sing'W had not been noticed th.erein. Apart Trom ttie ciear Cegai posrtmn as tcsct aown in severat dedswns, as noiiced hereinbefore, Viere canrwi be any doutft or dispute ihat onty because a re-couniinc) kas been directea, it would ?iot j&e fteid to fie sacrosanci to tfte effect tlvxt atlfiougli in a given case llie coun maij fina. sucn. ewdence to &e al vanarux with the pteadings, the same nwst be taken into consideraiion. H is now wett-settted prindple qflaw ihai evidencs adduoed beyond ihe pteadiivjs would not be admissibie nor can cazy evidence be pennitted. to be wlduced whicn is a( vanance wilti tne pleaclings. llie couit at a larger stage w[ tlie tnat as atso tne appeltate court having regardinf) to ihe rule of pleadings would be entitled to reject ihe evidence wherefor fhere does not exist any pleadui^". 14. In Sohanlal -v- Babu Gandiii and otfaers3 , the Hon'ble yupreme <jourt wruie consiaenng tfae provisions ot M.V. fauctiayat Act, and rules fraraed thereuader held that it is iacorrect to hold fhat Uie Court or Tnbunal caanot direct recounting ot- votes urLless the party has fiTst appUed ia writtng for recouatuig ofvotes. Where a case is inade out on me basis ot tlie evidence lea Dy tlie parties, it may du-ect recountm.g. 15. Ifwe examiae fhe facts of fhe present case m the light of fbie settied principles of law Jaid down by the Hon'ble Supreuie Court, we observe that fhe respondent No. 2 tUed Vae electiou petition wifh Uie averm.ent that in the electlon. hekt on 15th Jaauary, 2005, he was ixiformed by the Presiduig Ofiicer that he secured 81 aad 63 votes respectively from boofh No. 64 and 65 and fhus he secured 144 votes 3 2003(1) SCC 108 ^' aad ui tlie newspaper, lus name appearecl as elected Siarpancn ot Urain KancJiayat Samesara, Uowever suDsequenUy, Uie tjresiduig Utticer ot BooUt No. t>5 manipuiated tne number ot votes and inenuoned ni tfae countuig sUp tliat fie secured only &y votes in place of 63 votes trom tnat Boofh and copy of the counting slip was giveu to ttie peUtioner nereiu ManstianJsar. Un IK-l-.siUUEi, Uie Ketuming Utticer lUegally aeciarea tne peuuoner liereui as elected. yarpaacti showing that he secured 65 aud 77 votes from Booth No. 64 and 65 aatl Uius securea 14^ votes wtiereas me respondent No. 2, KaiKumar secured »laad. oy votes respecUvely trom ttie above &OOULS and. tlius secured 140 votes. After declaration ofthe result, when he appUed for recountuig, Uie Ketunung Utticer retused to accept tus appticatton. 16. The respondent/petitioner hereta denied fhe auegations of flie election petitloner. Learned Election Tribunal has allowed the prayer of recouiLt of the petitioner wifh fhe observation that ia fhis matter, igcounting has ah'eady been done once. Bofh the paities have ah'eady conie to kuow as to how niuch votes each of theia has secured, In t&ese cu-cumstaaces, Uiere is no ottier alteniate except orcleruig recount. Learaed Election Tribunal has ueifher referred to the pleaduigs ot ttie petitioner nor any eviclence aclducea t>y ttte parties aiid has ordered recount because recount was atreadv done iu the past, totally ignoring fhe orders passed by this Court whereby the eariier order ot recount as also ttie result ot Uie recount was aeciarecl as invalicl aad quasliea. rne above oraer is also bacl as me same tias been passect ignonng speci&c du-ection to trame ciear issues specityiag ffae prclmunary issues aad issues on inerit and preluninaiy issue has to t)e consiclerea antt decKlea Brst, t&eretore, ttie oraer unpugnecl caiuiot be sustained as the same has beeu passed ignoring fhe setued principles of law for orderuig recount aud is ia clear violation of fhe clirections issuea bv ttus (Jourt. 17. Accordingly, fhe petition is ailowed. TIie unpugned order of Aniiexure P-14 passed by fhe Etection Tribuual is set aside and the elecuon petition preterred Ky ttie respondent No. '2. is nereDy disiaissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^