In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.1842 of 2010 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:29.7.2011 Manjit Kaur and another .....Appellants v. Tara Singh and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.8949-CII of 2010: For the reasons stated in civil miscellaneous application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 9 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. FAO No.1842 of 2010 (O&M): This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2009 F.A.O. No.1842 of 2010 (O&M) [2] passed by the Presiding Officer (A.D.C.)-cum-Election Tribunal, Faridkot, (for short - `the Tribunal'), whereby Election Petition filed by the appellants for setting aside the election of respondents No.1 and 2, namely, Tara Singh and Balbir Kaur as Member Panchayats was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and going through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appellants had sought setting aside of the election of respondents No.1 and 2 as Member Panchayats on the ground that they were declared winner wrongly. The appellants have alleged that at the time of counting, votes had not been shown to them as they were given seats away from the counting table and valid votes of the appellants had been cancelled by the counting staff in wrong manner. It has also been alleged that votes of respondents No.1 and 2, which should have been cancelled, had been accepted valid votes and respondents No.1 and 2 had been declared winner wrongly as a result of which appellant No.1 lost the election with a margin of three votes from respondent No.2 and appellant No.2 lost the election with a margin of one vote from the respondent No.1. Besides, the appellants had alleged that they had filed election petition under Section 76 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 by leveling certain allegations that 12 votes of the appellants had been wrongly cancelled by the counting staff for helping respondents No.1 and 2 and the counting of votes had not been done in proper manner. It is also their case that respondents No.1 and 2 had adopted corrupt practices to allure the voters. The Tribunal has observed that though the allegations of adopting F.A.O. No.1842 of 2010 (O&M) [3] the wrong and corrupt methods during the election for alluring the voters were levelled, however, no evidence or witness had been produced by the appellants, from which it could be found that the respondents had used any wrong and corrupt method during the elections. It was under these circumstances, the Tribunal, while dismissing the election petition filed by the appellants, held that the allegations that the counting of votes had not been done in a proper manner and invalid votes had been counted in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and the appellants were not shown the votes at the time of counting, are not correct as at the time of counting the agents of all the parties and candidates or their representatives were present. The votes were counted in their presence by the counting staff and after the counting were over, all the candidates present and their agents/representatives had put their signatures. The appellants had also filed an application before the Tribunal for recounting the votes polled in the Gram Panchayat Elections of Village Ramuwala (Dhalianwali), Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot, to prove that the material illegalities and irregularities had been committed by respondent No.8 and the polling staff at the instance of respondents No.1 and 2, at the time of casting of votes as well as at the time of counting but the learned Tribunal had wrongly and illegally not ordered recounting of the votes and dismissed the application of the appellants, which is also against the provisions of the Act. This prayer of the appellants can not be accepted in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Udey Chand v. Surat Singh and another, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 821 in which it has been held that an order for inspection and recount of the ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order F.A.O. No.1842 of 2010 (O&M) [4] cannot be made as the matter of course except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting are made out. It was also held that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements viz. (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. Otherwise, also the appellants and respondents No.1 and 2 belong to one party and it is not necessary to order re-counting of votes where the candidates belong to same party. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. July 29, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*