IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Wm‘t Petition M347 Lr2005 Petitioner: WEE WME @ CD /. Smt. Gendbai W/o Shri Ganshyam Patel aged about 31, village—Jevradih, Gram Panchayat—Singhichhua, Tehsil-Bilaigarh, District Raipur. Versus Respondents: Smt. Meena Bai W/o Malikram, Gram Panchayat Singhichhua, Tahsil—Bilaigarh, District Raipur Smt. Prembaj W/o Karamchand, Gram Singhichhua, Tahsil— Bilajgarh, Distm'ct Raipur Smt. Yashodabai W/o Not Known, Gram—Doto,Tahsil— Bilaigarh, District Raipur. SmtRatnibai W/O Not Known, Gram-Dom, Tahsil—Bilaigarh, District Raipur. Smt. Laxminbai W/o Not Known. Gram—Doto, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur. Smt. Sakunbai W/o Munuram, .Gram—Singhichhua, Tahsilt Bilaigarh, District Raipur. . Returning Officer, Polling Booth No. 127, Gram Panchayat—Singhichhua, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur. . Returning Officer; Polling Booth No. 128, Gram Panchayat—Singhichhua, Tahsil-Bilaigarh, District Raipur. . Returning Officer, Polling Booth No. 129, Gram Panchayat—Singhichhua, Tahsil—Bilaigarh, District Raipur. 10. Presiding Officer (Panchayat) , Tahsil—Bilaigarh, District Raipur. 1 11. S.D.O., Bilaigarh, District Rajpur _ (K, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel or the petitioner. Mr. F.S. Khare, counsei for r spondent No.1. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Pan i Lawyer for the Sate/respondent No.1 1. Heard on admission. By the insrant writ petition nder Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner has question d the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 8-7-2005, whereby t e learned Specified Officer (Sub Divisionai Officer) has ordered for recount o ballot papers of polling station No.129, and thereafter. the recounting has alrea y aken place. Learned counsel for the pet tioner submits that in recount 15 votes have been declared invalid on account f the fact that the seal indicating the intention of voter was found against the name of the petitioner as well as other candidates and thereby, there is very chance of change in the result. After recount, in those 15 votes the p titioner noticed that those seal marks were found in different inks, therefore, re was every possibility that the seal marks must have been put by committin mischief after the counting: of votes, and the petitioner immediately filed an app ication (Annexure P-6) to that effect, but, the Sub Divisional Officer rejected, s objection vide order dated 30-7-2005. Therefore. the S.D.O. be directe to get those 15 votes examined by the chemical examiner in order to asc rtain whether both the sealswere afhxed at one time by seal or at different ti es by different seals, and record the finding thereafter, to Which learned cou sel for respondents No.1 & 11 have no objection. in view of the above, the S ecihed Ofhcer before announcing the result shall get these 15 votes exami by the chemical examiner and thereafter, e i n XI—HC—22 W m m 311%“ m 111% awn Ram? HFb'a WWW%'WW $a§wm 5-8-2005 ‘ On a mention being made,t ‘e case is taken up for hearing. XI-HC-22 EWWW mm WW mw mmwm P. l petitioner and there was any po counting togk place, and shall deem the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.2!943l2005 and i.A.No.6744/2005 also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certife record his fnding as to whether the re is any merit in the oblection raised by the ‘55ibiiity of manipulations after the originai e the eiection petition thereafter. With the direction aforesaid, )d copy of this order / sdl ‘ Shaw gadge Some l e (nodes)