IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4942 of 2008 Smt.Meera Devi, wife of Ashok Pandey, resident of village – Karwatahi, P O – Karwatahi, P S – Gopalpur, Dist – Gopalganj - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the Election Commissioner 3 The Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 4 District Election Officer –cum- District Magistrate, Gopalganj 5 Anchal Padadhikari –cum- Election Officer, Kuchaikote Prakhand, P O and P S – Kuchaikote, District – Gopalganj 6 District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gopalganj 7 Smt Seema Devi, wife of Jitendra Singh, resident of village – Gulaura, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj 8 Shail Devi, wife of Krishnawtar Singh, resident of village – Ahiyapur, P O – Ratanpura, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj 9 Smt Anita Devi, wife of Birendra Yadav, resident of village – Karwatahi, P O – Karwatahi, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj 10 Kumari Devi, wife of Amar Pandey, resident of village – Karwatahi, P O – Karwatahi, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj 11 Adiyanti Devi, wife of Krishna Pandey, resident of village – Karwatahi, P O – Karwatahi, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj 12 Nain Devi, wife of Bindeshwar Tiwary, resident of village – Ahiyapur, P O – Ratanpura, P S – Gopalpur, District – Gopalganj - Respondents ----------- 5 19.05.2010 Mr Y V Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there being non-compliance of Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006, the election petitioner, who is respondent herein, could not be heard by the Election Tribunal praying for recount. On the other hand, Mr Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Election petitioner submits that in the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that at the time of recount, petitioner made protests which were not responded to. It is specifically averred that the protests were with regard to wrong rejection of ballot papers which did not clearly bear the Swastik mark (they were faint). In the written statement filed by the officials, the factum of protest being made is not 2 denied. In the written statement of the elected candidate, it is stated that no such protest was made in terms of Rule 79. In course of evidence, Exhibit-1 was led by the election petitioner to show that written protest was also made in course of counting. State neither accepted it nor denied it. The trial Court, upon finding of the issues, has clearly given a finding that the fact that election petitioner (respondent herein) made protest at the time of counting stood clearly established by fact and he had no reason to disbelieve the same. In evidence, it was clear that ballot papers were rejected because it had faint Swastik mark though it had Swastik mark which is not denied. It was faint. The trial Court clearly was, thus, of the view that protest having been made, official witnesses having accepted the cause for rejection as also the same fact of rejection being accepted in the written statement of the writ petitioner, whose election was challenged, the trial Court came to a finding that such rejection was not valid and the results got vitiated and, as such, has ordered recount. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)