THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3099 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the proceedings, dated 17.07.2010, of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram (for short ‘the Tribunal) in I.A.No.41 of 2009 in E.O.P.No.2 of 2006. The petitioner, respondent No.1 and another contested for Office of Sarpanch in the elections held on 29.07.2006 for Kondayapalli Gram Panchayat, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. Respondent No.1 filed E.O.P.No.2 of 2006 alleging irregularities in the counting process. According to him, he secured 254 votes as against 250 votes secured by the petitioner and was declared elected, but with the intervention of the local M.L.A., results were changed. The petitioner opposed the O.P. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.41 of 2009 with a prayer to direct recounting of votes. The I.A. was allowed through order, dated 11.09.2009. That order was challenged in C.R.P.No.5328 of 2009. This Court disposed of the revision with certain directions permitting the recounting of votes with the participation of the officials of the Panchayat Raj Department. The recounting has since taken place on 17.07.2010 by the District Panchayat Officer and his subordinates, in the presence of the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. A detailed report as to the observations made thereat was prepared by the Tribunal. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Through the report under challenge, the Tribunal took note of the observations made by the District Panchayat Officer as regards the validity or invalidity of certain votes. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no plea in the E.O.P. itself as regards the declaration of certain votes as invalid or vice versa. It is further submitted that the exercise undertaken by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the E.O.P. In the order passed in C.R.P.No.5328 of 2009 itself, this Court made it clear that respondent No.1 was under obligation to make out a strong case for recounting of votes. That necessity was obviated on account of the concession given by the petitioner. Once the petitioner conceded for recounting of votes, it is too late to raise an objection for that very recounting. Once an order for recounting of votes is passed, for all practical purposes, the stage gets relegated to the one of original counting itself. In the process of recounting, the entire exercise would be liable to be reviewed and the validity or otherwise of the votes can also be determined. The only difference is that in the counting that takes place immediately after the election, the objections raised by the parties as to the validity or otherwise of the votes cannot be examined in detail, whereas in the process of recounting, the objections need to be considered very objectively by the Presiding Officer through a written order, which, in turn, may become part of the judgment itself. Therefore, the petitioner cannot object to the very process of recounting of votes. In case he has any objection as to the observations made in the report, he can certainly submit the same to the Tribunal, which, in turn, shall consider them in detail. For one reason or the other, more than four years have elapsed, ever since the election petition was submitted. The matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to take further steps, namely verification of the objections raised by the parties as to the observations made by the District Panchayat Officer in relation to the validity or otherwise of the votes and to pass final orders in E.O.P.No.2 of 2006, within one week from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.08.2010. kdl