C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4524 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 14 , 2009 Jasbir Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Shiv Charan and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Aggarwal,Advocate for the respondents -- Sabina, J. Shiv Charan-respondent No.1 filed the Election petition under Section 176(4)(b) of the Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (for short `the Act'). Vide the impugned order dated 24.8.2006, recounting of votes was ordered. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely because, there was a difference of two votes between the elected candidate and the election petitioner-Shiv Charan, there was no reason to order recounting of votes. In fact, recounting of votes had been done and Shiv Charan was found unsuccessful. The election process was done in a peaceful manner including the counting of votes. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has place reliance on Subhash Chand vs. Ramesh Kumari and another 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 777; Bharat Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others 1996(1)RRR 121 and Baldev Singh vs.Shinder Pal Singh and another 2006(4)RCR(Civil) 891. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M) 2 submitted that 21 votes had been wrongly rejected and since the margin between the elected candidate and respondent No.1 was of two votes only, the recounting of votes had been rightly ordered. He has placed reliance on Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others 2004(1)Civ.C.C.212 and Raj Devi vs. Smt.Santosh and others 1996(3) PLR 106. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, there is a margin of only two votes in between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 21 votes were rejected by the Returning Officer. The case of respondent No.1 was that his valid votes had been wrongly rejected,whereas, invalid votes had been counted in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also made a complaint before the Higher authorities regarding the illegality in counting of votes. After examining the evidence led before it, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, had, thus, rightly ordered that the recounting of votes be done to impart justice between the parties. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are on different facts. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 14, 2009 arya C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M) 3