IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14989 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 29, 2008 Nasru .....PETITIONER Versus The Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH --- Present: Mr.H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Reegarh, Tgehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Election Tribunal whereby the election petition filed by Sher Mohd.-respondent No.2 under Section 176(4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act has been allowed while ordering recounting of the votes. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the petition as well as impugned order. In the present case, the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Reegarh, Tgehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat was held on 9.4.2005. Total 1003 votes were polled, out of which, C.W.P. No.14989 of 2008 -2- 997 votes were found to be valid and six votes were rejected as invalid. The petitioner secured 499 votes whereas respondent No.2 secured 498 votes and by a margin of one vote the petitioner was declared elected. Respondent No.2 challenged the election of the petitioner by filing an election petition on the ground that six invalid votes were counted in favour of the petitioner; four valid votes of respondent No.2 were illegally rejected by the Presiding Officer; five valid votes cast in favour of respondent No.2 were added to the count of the petitioner in a clandestine manner; respondent No.2 and his agents were not allowed to inspect the ballot papers. Consequently, the result was wrongly declared. On the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed the issue to the effect whether the election petitioner (respondent No.2) was entitled for recounting of votes. On the said issue, a finding has been recorded to the effect that counting of votes was done in an illegal manner and when the objections to the illegal counting were raised, the same were not entertained by the Presiding Officer. This finding has been recorded on the basis of evidence as well as on the basis of admission of the petitioner. In view of the said finding, the recounting has been ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not provided sufficient opportunity by the Election Tribunal to lead the evidence in support of his case because the evidence was closed by order of the court on 22.7.2008. Therefore, he could not prove the death certificates of two persons, who illegally cast votes in favour of respondent No.2. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.4015 of 2008 in which on 31.7.2008 this Court directed the Election Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings of the election petition for the date beyond C.W.P. No.14989 of 2008 -3- 12.8.2008, date for which notice of motion was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that on the same date, i.e., 31.7.2008, the Election Tribunal finally decided the election petition against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by this court in Civil Revision No.4015 of 2008 was conveyed to the Election Tribunal, but in spite of that the Election Tribunal has decided the matter. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable as the counsel has failed to show any material that before final decision was pronounced by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner or his counsel had brought the factum of passing of the order by this court in C.R.No.4015 of 2008 to the notice of the Election Tribunal. It appears that the factum of passing of the order dated 31.7.2008 was not brought to the notice of the Election Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any ground to set aside the order of the Election Tribunal on this ground. However, on merits, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Election Tribunal for recounting of the votes as a finding of fact has been recorded that illegality was committed in counting and in view of the said fact, the Election Tribunal was fully justified in ordering for recounting of the votes. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 29, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) vkg JUDGE