IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9719 of 2011 1. Wajuddin Son Of Late Sk.Shamsher Ali Resident Of Village- Sikti, P.S.- Sikti, District- Araria Versus 1. The State Election Commisioner,Bihar,Patna Through State Election Commissioner,Sone Bhawan,Birchand Patel Marg,Patna 2. State Election Commissioner,Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg,Patna 3. The State Of Bihar 4. District Magistrate Cum District Election Officer,Araria 5. Deputy Collector Land Reforms,Araria-Cum-Returning Officer,Sikti Block, P.S.- Sikti, District- Araria 6. Md.Mumtaz Alam Son Of Sagiruddin Resident Of Village- Sikti, P.S.- Sikti,District- Araria 2 12.12.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Muraripur in Sikti Block in the district of Araria. The petitioner submits that on total counting of votes it appears that winning candidate i.e. respondent no.6 secured 961 votes, whereas petitioner secured 958 votes. The petitioner applied for recounting of votes in view of the guide lines laid down by the State Election Commission published in Dainik Hindustan on 21.5.2011. The petitioner states that as per the guide lines of the State Election Commission if the difference of votes polled between the winning candidate and the immediate losing candidate is less than 9 votes than in such circumstances on an application filed, the Assistant Returning Officer/Returning Officer would be obliged to do the recounting of votes. The petitioner filed an application for recounting of votes on 19.5.2011 itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that votes were not recounted in true spirit of the guide 2 lines laid down by the State Election Commission rather they checked the invalid votes. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein in paragraph 5 it has been stated that recounting for votes of ward 2, 3 and 4 was done. The petitioner submits that in fact it would appear from paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that only invalid ballot paper of ward nos.2, 3 and 4 were checked and recounting was not done. The petitioner could have had a point, had the election result not declared under Rule 81(2). The petitioner can seek remedy by way of election petition under section 137 of the Act. In case such a petition is filed, the same would be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a year. I would like to point out here that recounting of votes, in case the winning candidate wins only by a margin of 9 votes is to be done as per the guide lines issued by the State Election Commission, contained in Annexure-6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. KHAN (S.P. Singh,J)