C^ IffT^ Slngte B»nch IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.CC) NO. 3319 /2oii PETITIONER RESPONDENT N0.1 RESPQNDENTS ^v ^*^ ...-••" -. ,.^ ....^^" 2] 5;.^y ft^y ^•-^ ,6- ^" A--" AS-" ^" Balaram Rathore, S/o. Shri Bishun Ram Rathore, aged about 35 years, R/o. Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Village Kaudiya, Block Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS l] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Specified Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3] Horilal Yadav, S/o. Tularam Yadav, aged about 53 years, R/o. Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Block Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent/ElectionPetitioner 4] Returning Officer (Panchayat) Masturi, Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) .- 5] Authorized Officer, Pooling Booth No. 92, Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Block Masturi (R.S. Pandey, Agriculture Development Officer, Bahatarai, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)) 6] Authorized Officer, Pooling Booth No. 93, Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Block Masturi (Asharam Jaiswal, Upper Division Teacher, Amatara, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)) 7] Authorized Officer, Pooling Booth No. 94, Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Block Masturi (G.P. Pandey, Agriculture Development Officer, Tifra, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)) /r. ^/ 8] Authorized Officer, Pooling Booth No. 94-A, Gram Panchayat, Kaudiya, Block Masturi (Shiv Kumar Kashyap, Headmaster, Primary School, Kolihabhata, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent no.5 to 8 Address through: Returning Officer, Panchayat, Block Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3k\\ Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.(C)N0.3919/2011 Balaram Rathore Respondent no.1 Respondents Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present: - Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General along with Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 on advance copy. \ Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for respondent No.3 on caveat. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 21st day ofJuly, 2011) Heard. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. Case of the petitioner is that the Election Tribunal has passed the order of recount in a mechanical manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 fited an Election Petition praying for recount on various allegations as contained in the Election Petition. However, the Election Tribunal did not conduct any enquiry whatsoever and passed order of recount earlier on 07-07-2010, which was subjected to challenge by fi|ing Writ Petition (C) No.3753 of 2010. That writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31-08-2010 holding that the order of recount is illegal, as the same has been passed without framing issues and examining witnesses, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the case in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the Election Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties, by impugned order, recount has been ordered without discussing and examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record and without recording any reason whatsoever, to come to the conclusion that a case for EI'!riii;^*^?^sa .- "7 recount is made out. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course, which has been done in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kattinokkula Murali Krishna vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and Others, 2010(1) SCC 466 and Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs. State ofBiharand Others, 2004 AIR SC 2036. 5. On the other hand, ledrned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that proper enquiry was made by the Election Tribunal, in which, issues were framed and the parties were given full opportunity to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. He submits that even though, detailed or elaborate reasons have not been given by the Election Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a case for recount is made out, the fact remains that the election petitioner had made out a case for recount on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led before the Tribunal. In the alternative, it is submitted by learned counsel for respond&nt No.3 that, if it is found that Without recording any reasons, the Election Tribunal has come to the conclusion regarding recount, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for examination of oral and documentary evidence, which has been collected and pass speaking order in the matter. 6. A perusal ofthe impugned orderdated 13-07-2011 shows thatthe learned Tribunal has recorded that as the counting in Booth No.93 has been disputed and whether preparation of counting slip by the authorized officers in respect of Booth No.93 was defective or not, can only be clear upon recount. 7. It is too well settled that recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The Tribunal is under obligation to examine the oral and docum^ntary evidence on record in the light of the pleadings made by the parties and record a satisfaction based on examination of such material. The Tribunal is quasi-judicial authority, and therefore, under an obligation to justify the conclusion, as to why recount is being ordered. l'lt"!w 3, (t^-1 8. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the order of recount, on the face of it, is not maintainable and it has to be set aside. The matter is now remanded to the Election Tribunal, which shall consider the oral and documentary evidence collected during the enquiry in the trial of election petition, hear both the parties and pass a speaking order, after discussing the evidence/material available on record, in accordance with law. The petitioner and respondent No.3 shall appear before the Election Tribunal on 10 ofAugust, 2011. A copy ofthis order be also placed before the Election Tribunal for necessary compliance. The Tribunal shall also endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously and not later than two months from 10-08-2011. 9. In view offoregoing, the petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane