IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17375 of 2009 1. ANSUIYA DEVI W/O SRI BAIJNATH PRASAD R/O VILL.- TAL SAHARSA, P.O.- TAL SAHARSA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER (PANCHAYAT), BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE IN SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER (PANCHAYAT) JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-RETURNING OFFICER SIKANDRA, BLOCK- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 4. SHOBHA PATEL W/O SRI SATISH KUMAR R/O VILL.- SIJHAURI, P.O.- SIJHAURI, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 5. JAI MANTI DEVI W/O LATE LAKHAN MAHTO R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- SIJHAURI, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 6. PARI DEVI W/O SRI PRAKASH SAO R/O VILL. + P.O.- TAL SAHARSA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 7. MADHURI DEVI W/O SRI RAJESH KUMAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- SIJHAURI, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 8. MEENA DEVI W/O SRI RAMCHANDRA MANDAL R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- SIJHAURI, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 9. YASODA DEVI W/O SRI DASRATH CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- JALAI DOSTINI, P.O.- MANJOSH, DISTT.- JAMUI 10. LALITA DEVI W/O KAPILDEO TANTI R/O VILL.- BALI, P.O.- SIJHARUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 11. SHARDA DEVI W/O SRI MATHURA PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- KHEWSAR, P.O.- SIJHAURI, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 12. SHYAM SUNDER DEVI W/O SRI ASHOK SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- MANJOSH, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 13. SUNITA DEVI (I) W/O SRI RAM BALAK YADAV R/O VILL.- TAL SAHARSA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI 14. SUNITA DEVI (II) W/O SRI PATI PRASAD R/O VILL.- TAL SAHARSA, P.S.- SIKANDRA, DISTT.- JAMUI ----------- 03. 10.02.2010 Heard Mr. S.N.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition and Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, the contesting candidate. On an application of Respondent No. 4 the Election Tribunal has ordered for recount of votes. Petitioner had been declared elected. It is against this order of recount 2 of vote that the present writ petition was filed. It may be noted that by interim order the Election Tribunal was stopped from recounting the votes. Mr. S.N.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel in support of the writ petition raises short issue. His first submission is that when the election petition was filed, it did not contain proper verification in as much as all that was said in the verification is that the entire contents of the petition i.e. Para 1 to Para 25 are true to the best of deponents knowledge and belief. No clause was referred to much less annexed nor was any part thereof verified true to the knowledge. Such verification is no verification in eye of law and as such could not be the foundation for a successful challenge to election by way of election petition. His second contention was that the only pleading in relation to irregularity is contained in paragraph No. 11 wherein it is stated that the total number of votes polled were 2817 and there were only a 2751 votes found at the time of counting. It was apprehended that 66 ballet papers which were in favour of the petitioner were removed. The winning margin was only 53 votes. Mr. Sharma submits that even if this fact is accepted, it does not give any ground for recount. He further submits that merely because 66 votes were not found at the time of counting could not vitiate the results and could not lead to recounting as for the purposes of recount however 3 small the winning margin may be there had to be specific grounds. None are alleged in the election petition as such no evidence in support thereof could be lead nor could be appreciated by the Court. Reliance is placed on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kattinokkula Murali Krishna versus Veeramalla Koteswara Rao since reported in 2010(1) SCC 466. The said case was dealing with challenge in an election petition thrown to the election of Sarpanch. The Court had applied to doctrine of no prejudice while ordering recount as the winning margin was narrow, the Apex Court found that there was only bald statement about irregularity in the election petition. The Apex Court found that doctrine of no prejudice was irrelevant for the purpose. It further held that unless there are specific facts pleaded in the election petition with regard to irregularity no evidence can be permitted in that regards and beyond pleading. Vague assertions can not be made specific by evidence. Subsequently lead as proof beyond pleading is not permissible. Having gone through the order of the Tribunal, I find that if one looks to the pleading, the pleading is only as noticed above that 66 ballet papers were found missing. With what consequence and on basis of what facts and why it require recount, there is nothing specific. The pleadings being vague, no amount of evidence can be permitted to be led in 4 that regard. That being the position the election petition itself could not be entertain in the manner in which it has been done as held by the Apex Court. Consequently the evidence being beyond the pleadings would not have been looked into much less for the purposes of ordering recount. That being the position, the order of the Election Tribunal is set aside. The writ application is thus allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)