HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETST!ON N0. 247 of 2006 \ 'ETiTI ER Prahalad, S/o Charan Singh, by caste Gond, aged about 62 years, residsnt of yiiiage Lailunga, Tahsii and Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Specified Officer/Sub Divisiona! Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG). 2. Suresh Kumar, S/o Shanker Lal, by caste ihil, resident of Lailunga, Tahsi! and Poiice Station Laiiunga, District Raigarh (CG). 3. Mahesh, S/o Chaitu Ram, by caste Oraon, resident of LaHunga, Tahsi! and Police Station Laiiungs, DistricS Raigarh (CG). P! Sai, S/o Nanhi Ram, by caste Kanwar, resident of Laiiunga, Tahsi! and Poiice Ststion Lailunga, Districi Raigarh (CG). {Wrlt oetition under Articie 226/227 of ths Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satjsh K. Agnihotri, J. Mr. Sarfraj Khan, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. None appears on behalf of the respondents No.2, 3 & 4, dsspite service of notice. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on thls 2nd day of Juiy, 2009) Heard iearned counsei for the oarties. 2) By this petition, She petitioner seeks to chailenge fhe legsiity and vaiidity ofthe order dated 29-12-2005 (Annexure - P/7) passeci by the Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer (Panchayat), Gharghoda, in election petition No.39/A-89/2004-05 whereby the eiection petition preferrsd by the respondent No.2 herein has been ailowed and deciared him as elected SarDanch on the basis of recountina ofvotes. 3) According to the ieamed counsei appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is an eiected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lailunga. The respondent No.2, v/ho is aiso a contesting candidate, wtthout making any application for recounting of votes before the competent authority, preferred an election petitlon and prayed for setting aside the eiection of the petitionsr t-~ <<?(T3 »-IT^T I L- herein and recounting of votes. After receipt of the notics, the petitionsr submitteci his writtsn statement by contending that the maneiafory requirements for fiiing eiection have not been foilowed by the eiection petifioner and prays for dismissa! of the same. Learned counset submite that the Specified Officer without appreciating the facts and cireufnstanc^ of the case ordered for recounting of votes. Befors passing the impugned order the Specified Officer has not at ai! considered the objections raised by the oetitioner herein. 4) ! have hsard and the documents learned counsel for the appended thereto. , pSi 5) From the record, it appears that eariier the petitioner has preferred a writ petltion before this Court being W.P.No.5264 of 2805 yrahaiad vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others) impugning 8ie order dated 5-10-2005 (Annexure - P/5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Specified OfRcer (Panchayat), Gharghoda, whereby the Spscffied Officer, white recording finding on other aiiegations in fhe eiection petition fiied by the respondent No.2 herein, directed to hoid recounUng ofvotss 17-10-2005 on the ground of disturbancss created on the date of poilina. The coordinate Bench of this Court havlng heard ieamed counse! appearing for the respectlve partles, at length, obser/ed as under: "11. Learnec! Tribuna! after going through the pfeadlngs of the respective parties and on the basis of oral evidence on record has arrlved at the conclusion that on the date of poiiing and counting there was disruptjon in the etectlon proc^s in booth No.47 which counting. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the counting was conducted under inadequats iight arrangement and it is oniy because of these disturbances the pelationer has won the eiection by one vote. Thus keeping in wew a!l these iacunas the recount has been ordered by the Tribunai. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in visw the judgment of ttie Suprsme Court cited above, 1 am of the opinion fhat the instent petftion is dwoid "f substance. The same is accord.'nfliy dismissea." S) Thereafter, on re-counting of votes the respondent No.2 herein declared eiected by margin of 17 votes by order dated 28-12-; (Annexure - P./7). Thus, this petition. 0390035(6002);; 2ZOeOSZ66!-y!V> sijl s»o||eq p AOBJOSS si|i }08}0jd 01 jspjo u', •iunos-sj e p|oq o»psuipus sj ynoo 94} ssneaeq Aiaisiu jo Suiifse eq} joj AISJSIU psjspjo eq o} }ou si (unoo-ej s }et)i sm} si i| •92,, :jepun se psAjasqo 'gSjaqio pue zsszy •w •SA jseqex pauiiyeiiv •vi ui }jnoo euusjdng s|q,uoH 841 'suoisiosp iejSAas eq} psjepisuoo BuiAeii jsyy (8 ,,'iunoosj Buipajip U| JQJJS ise^ueuu pSB!iuuio3 seij 'ejopjeiji 'ieunquj. si|i •tyBnotiijaye ue sq p|no» 'epeui uesq BUIAEIJ uoffesjjdde ue jo uo!te6a]|e sijj. -iinssj QVQ jo uoj}eje[08p sq? p siep sqi uo SDBUI uesq pei| uo!}e3i|ddB ijons ou }Bqt eiBoipui seop sn sjo^sq psoeid ussq seq uogeoijdde qons ou }e4} pe( sifl pue eoueisu! }sjy sy} }e spetu sq isniu SuguM ui uosfeayctds ue 'psounouue si uoipsia sui 10 }jnssj sq} se uoos se '}eui sspjAOjd ^esi! e]m etft leq} pe^ sq} jo MSIA uj •6u!}unoosj jo^ spunoj6 A)opejS!}es 6UIMB uo oo? ley? 'tunoaej jepjo 01 pejinbaj si ynoo 84} jo jeunqui 94} 'seseo SJBJ u| •peuisiuietu sq pjnoqs }0jjeq jo Aoejoes 94} 'siqissod se JB^ se pue Dsuoesjq eq }ou pfnoqs }0jjeq jo ASSJSSS }eqi uojijsod jeSs! psjjiss s; }i 'Sugunossj jo^ pssssjppe SJSM siusiunSje pue pa]t[ sem uoiBed uoitoei®©4}LIOILJM y) ijnsej e se 'soe;d U9)|B} 8AE4 pjno/A '}UB||eddB sifl Aq pepusiuoa se 'uoiiei'ndiUEU {uenbssqns siuos 'AjsnoiAqo •u6j}e3||dde Aue speuj ^ou pey ^uspuodssj 04} teiji e{B3jpui p|noM BUIIUM ui jspjo Aue psssed iou pey jeoiyo sq; isqt pB{ siii •BUIIUAA ui '8SIAU9l|lO JO JSpJO Sq} j|833J o} Jeqiis ^oejsq} Upddns us SUOSBSJ LBW jspjo ue ssed pinous jeayjO Sinuinjey sy} pue epeui eq pinoqs Bujti-iM ui uoi}eoi|dde ue yei^ si {uspeosjd -uoRipuoo jeffuesss st|j. •6u!}unoo 3'i^ ui seiiueinBejJj p3Ss]|e ©41p uogejepisuoo pue 83U3pjA3 ^o uojpnppe jsye U©AS BuRunooaj }ogj!p 0} psjsmodiue }ou si ^noo SL|t 10 jBunqui stj} usij+ 'euop }ou si ij j| 'Sugunoosj Bupjsss 8!!4M 'psjeijt yoddns ui SUOSBSJ SA]B pue 6ui}u,w u! uogeoiidde ue siieiu 0} 'iUSSSjd {OU SE/A 3}Bp!pUBO Sl{t ,1 '}U3SB UE jo 8}epipuea e uodn }uaqLunou! sj }i 'ssiny 34; jo Qi sgny 10 sBenSuB! Ajoiepueiu eq} p }uBii 9i|i uj -petunoosj }ou peq jeotyo Buiujnisy sq; pue isayso Suiujn^y 04} 01 uoseoiidde UB spBLu }uepuodsaj ey} ^ey} uosueiuos SL|I 0} aouBidsooe SMB 0} unoiyip si y -9,, : jspun se pSAjesqo ijnoQ 8uiajdn9 eqi 9 ejed u| • sisyio PUB lAaa fojeg i -SA jtey tueii •tiug ui pejspusj pnoo suiajans Siq.uoH eyi ^o uoisioep 94} uodn soueiisj psoejd jeuoi}Bad eifl joj SuuesddB jasunoo p^uJe^^ (^ i .\ F Gowri court woutd permit a re-count only upon a ctear case in that regard having been made out. To permit or not to permit a re-count is a que^ion .; invoiying jurisdiction of the court. Once a re-count has been aiiowed fhe court cannot shut its eye on the result of re-count on the ground that the result of re-count as found is at variance with ths pleadings. Once the court has permstted re-count within the well-setUed parameters of exercising jurisdiction in this ' regard, it is the resuit of the re-count vAich has to be given effeet to." 9) From the impugned order dated 29-12-2005 (Annexure - P/7), -it appears that the process of recounting was done in prssence of both the parties, the bailot pspers were in sealsd eondition and the same were opened and re-counted in presence of both the parties. After re-counting of votes, ths respondent No.2 deciared eiected by margin ttf 17 votes. Thus, there Is no illesaSitv or infirmitv in the order oassed bv the Specifie'd Officer. as the re-counting ofvotes has been done in presence of both the parties. 10) Applying the well settied principies of iaw as enunciated in subsequent decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the fact of the present case, wherein re-counting was done, which resulted into etection of respondent No.2 herein by a margin of 17 votes, there is no merit in ftis petition. The Tribuna! has rightly considered all the aspecte of the case and passed the order impugned herein. The impugned order is just & proper and does notwarrant any interfersnce. 11) In view of foregoing, dismlssed. Noofder asto costs. is liabis to be and is hereby Sd;- S.K. Agnihotri judge