IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.671 of 2007 REENA DEVI, wife of Sri Arvind Kumar, resident of village – Sahugarh, 2 Bhatu Tola, Ward No. 7, P.S. & District – Madhepura. ______Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Patna through its Secretary. 3. State Election Commissioner, Sone Bhawan, Patna. 4. Collector, Madhepura. 5. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Madhepura. 6. Election Returning Officer cum Circle Officer, Madhepura Block, Madhepura. 7. Nutan Devi, wife of Sri Alok Kumar, R/O village Bhain Tola, P S & District – Madhepura. 8. Asha Devi, wife of Pramod Kumar, r/o Tola Bhaiswarpur, P S and District – Madhepura. 9. Gujiya Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Roy, resident of village – Bhagwanpur tola (East), District – Madhepura. 10. Jayanti Devi, wife of late Ragho Prasad Singh, resident of Ganesh Asthan Tola, District – Madhepura. 11. Manjoo Devi, wife of Pravind Kumar alias Paro Yadav, resident of Tola Bhatu Bazar, District – Madhepura. 12. Manisa Devi, wife of Lakshman Yadav, resident of Tola Maheshpur (West), District – Madhepura. 13. Rama Devi, wife of Ramendera Prasad Yadav, resident of Tola Bhagwanpur (West), District-Madhepura. 14. Shyama Devi, wife of Ganesh Prasad Das, Tola Bhatu Bazar, District – Madhepura. 15. Sarajani Devi, wife of Vivek Kumar Yadav, Tola – Govindpur Pathraha, District – Madhepura. 16. Sita Devi, wife of Shashi Bhushan Mandal, Tola Bhatu Bazar , Madhepura. 17. Seema Devi, wife of Sri Birendra Pd. Yadav, Karu Tola, P.S. & District – Madhepura. ______Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Lala Sachindra Kumar and Bam Bahadur Jha. For respondent No.7: M/S. Sharda Nand Mishra, Deepak Kumar and Dhananjay Kumar Gupta. For Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. For the State: M/S. Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha & Sanjay Prasad, AC to GP – 3. ------- 04. 29.07.2009 The present writ application arises from the decision of Shri Sahjanand Sharma, learned Munsif cum Presiding Officer of Election - 2 - Tribunal, Madhepura passed in Election Suit No. 7 of 2006. Election petition was filed by the petitioner primarily against the declaration of the result of the returned candidate on the ground that the election authorities did not do a complete recounting of all the votes polled and there was unexplained 21 missing votes and in view of the same the election of the returned candidate namely, Nutan Devi should be declared illegal and void. The post in question is that of a Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the issues which came to be formulated in the suit and the evidence, the Election Tribunal has rendered its decision dated 15th December, 2006. The Tribunal after considering every aspect of the matter dismissed the election petition on the ground that no case for interference or declaration of the result of the election, to be illegal has been made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the tally of the chart which is brought on record as annexure-2 the total number ballot papers issued was 3592 and total number of ballot papers recovered from ballot boxes and counted was 3571. In other words, not all ballot papers which were issued were finally counted and till those 21 ballot papers, went missing, are traced out the election result cannot be said to be proper. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been praying for the same before the election authorities as well as the tribunal but this aspect has not been looked into. Learned counsel representing the contesting respondent - 3 - namely, respondent no.7 submits that this is an improvement upon the question which was initially raised or decided by the tribunal. After counting of the votes, looking at the margin of the declaration of the result a prayer for recounting was made by the petitioner, which was readily accepted by the election authorities. Recounting was done and still thereafter since the petitioner had lost by 12 votes, the final result was declared. The petitioner had even made an endorsement that she was satisfied with the recounting but probably on legal advice and may be as an after thought spacious grounds are sought to be raised in the writ application. The Court has gone through the decision which has been rendered by the tribunal. The basic question which seems to have been raised and was an issue for consideration is reflected in para 8 of the said decision. Evidences have been led and a finding thereafter has also been recorded by the tribunal in the concluding part of para 9. The Court is also conscious of the position that the tribunal has taken various decisions which have been rendered not only by this Court but by Apex Court on theissue of recounting. One of the leading decision in this regard is the case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 6 SCC 331 as well as some subsequent decisions which have been rendered by this Court based on above ratio. Since the decisions which have been rendered by the Tribunal is in conformity with above decisions, then merely because the decision is not to the liking of the petitioner the same cannot be interfered with. - 4 - There is no legal infirmity having been pointed out except the fact that the contention of the petitioner seems to be on certain aspect of the evidence which does not make a difference to the substantive findings rendered by the tribunal. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)