.•^ ^p ^. IN THE i-DNOUBABLE HIQH COUBI OF CHHATTISGARH sAT BILASPUR, W.P. ___^15^___ 2001» ^' .f^ L..^'^ ^r^ ^ ( PETIIION UNDQi S^TION 226/227 CCNSTIIUTION OF INDIA) . / . • • ... .. ; • •- PetitLoner t",/JallLaL Malekar S/0 Kishan Lal Non-Applicant* Mg^er Janapad, Dondi Lohara, Janpad, District Durg( Chhattisgarh ). Verms ^' ftespondents s" lo^tate of chhattisgarh$ >%'irough sSecretary s T®n.chayat,Raigur, 2, Additional Collector, (Panchayat), Presiding Officer, Durg Distt, Durg ~C .attxsgarh« 5. Retuming Officer, Panchayat, Block Office, Qondi Lohara, Burg (CG). 4,^Bilip Shanaa S/0 Nohan Lal Shanaa, R/0 Village - Chilhati, Post- Bharada, Tahsil Bondi Lohara, Oistt. Qurg, ( Candidate Jan&pad Area» No.18). (Applicant), te-^sy ..<•» •.%-y-~' 'n WRIT PETITION UMDEB SMnSM;yAKTICLE 226/227 CONSTITUTIGM / OF'IN&IA FOR QUASHIK& 'mE ORQm PASSS) ON 25»07«2001. ^/ IN PAiCH^^ CASE MOO. -15-A/ 89(15) OF 2000-2001, ^K P^ ">^ BY TH£ AIB3ITIONAL COLLECTOB. ( PANCHMA3?) DURG POR ""^^ N^ \€.^ ;OUNTING OP VOTES OF K311.ING BOOIH S CB^TSE 1 ^ OF Mfrl^ ^ f!L. M ^l ~ ° -- "i ' ,{,.:-/&APAD P^CHAYAT DO I LOIiABA J^APiJ) ELE^TIOH2000< ^g 7!: »• o &-« e ^ ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1523/2001 Jailal Malekar Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others Before Hon'ble AAr. W.A.SHISHAK. Chief Justice Present None for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned 6overnment Advocate for the respondents No.l, 2 and 3. Shri H.S.Tripathi. learned counsel for the respondent No.4. O R t>E R The petitioner won Janpad Panchayat election. Counting of votes took place on 1st and 2nd February, 2000. Results were announced on 3rd February. 2000. The writ petitioner was declared elected. 2. The contention of respondent No.4 is that before the results were declared and when the votes were being counted a request was made for recount pointing out certain irregularities in the counting. The Returning Officer declined to accept the request on the ground that the ballot papers were already in strong room. An election petition was filed before the Collector. The contention of the respondent No.4 is that because of serious doubts in the counting and recording of votes there is a need to recount the ballot papers to ascertain who actuolly won the election. The writ petitioner filed written statement before the Collector. After hearing the parties, the learned Collector ordered for recounting. The said order was passed on 1 AnnexureP-1.^9- ^ ^4T^/. ^, 1A""^P'\<^- ^^i-^^^ - 25.07.2001 Annexure P- 3. Shri H.S.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has drawn .^& my attention to a document Annexure R-4 in which the total votes recorded QS-" 530. In the next page i.e. page No.14 of the return another document indicates that there were 524 total votes cast. 19 invalid votes and 505 valid votes. It may be stated that in terms of Annexure R-4, total votes were 530, invalid votes 20 and validvotes 510. According to Shri H.S.Tripathi, when we read these two documents together it is found that six votes have not been recorded. 4. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, submits that after the parties were heard, the learned Collector was of the view that in order to clarify the doubts, the best way was to recount the votes. It is furt-her submitted that such recount will in no way prejudice any of the parties inasmuch as such recount would only reveal the truth of the allegations as regard the valid votes cast in favour of either the writ petitioner or the respondent No.4. It is half an hour since the hearing of this matter began. No one appears to press this petition. »•! 5. After hearing Shri H.S.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing for .u the respondents ^^b, 2 and 3,1 am of the view that in the interest of justice / it is proper to allow recount as ordered by the CoJlector. In other words in the present facts and circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed on 25 July, 2001. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. Certified copy as per rules. £ Sd/- Chief Justice 21.11.2001 -<^%y