IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12483 of 2009 Date of decision: 15th July, 2010 Dara Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, order (Annexure P-5) dated 6th August, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar, whereby recounting of votes for the election held at Gram Sabha of village Devidas Pura was ordered, has been assailed. Present petition has been filed by Dara Singh, who was a successful candidate from ‘Scheduled Caste’ category and had obtained 142 votes. The successful candidate from the ‘Backward Class’ category, i.e. Manjinder, had obtained 135 votes, whereas respondent No.3, at whose behest recounting of votes was ordered, had obtained 134 votes. There is a difference of only one vote among the candidates, who has to succeed from the ‘Backward Class’ category. The petitioner had obtained highest number of votes, therefore he is in no way concerned with the Civil Writ Petition No.12483 of 2009 candidate, who has to emerge as a victor from the ‘Backward Class’ category. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Single Bench of this Court rendered in ‘Kirpal Singh v. Preet Mohinder Singh’ 1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 248 to say that recounting should not have been ordered as a matter of course on mere asking. Learned counsel has submitted that a very strong ground should have been made by a person, who has sought recounting of votes. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in ‘Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Shri Sheo Shanker Prasad Yadav and others’ AIR 1973 Supreme Court 215 to say that before any such recounting is ordered, the allegations made in the election petition and the evidence led by the parties ought to be considered by the Election Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the elected candidates were delaying disposal of the case and on various dates they had not caused their appearance. After hearing counsel for respondent No.3, the Court had ordered recounting of votes. Taking the overall perspective into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that where there is a difference of only one vote between the elected candidate and the candidate who has been unsuccessful, recounting is justifiable. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 15, 2010 rps 2