IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C) No. H ‘3 L? ‘§ OF 2011 (s.B¢ pETITiONER : / Tulsi Ram Mandey, son of Sitaram, aged about 4O years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and Villago Majitha, Block Aararlg, District Raipur (C.G.) (Non-agglicant ‘ Return Candidate) $1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS /":. Bhav Singh Pardhi, son of Shri Ude Singh Pardhi, Resident of Village Majitha, Block Aarang, District, Raipur (C. G.) (Election Petitioner) 2. Gajanand Sahu, Son of Shri Govind Sahu, . Jagmohan Gayakward, son of Shri ' Mugul Gayakward Tula Ram, son of Hariram, All l to 4 are R/o. Village Majitha, Block Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) Balararn, Son of Shri Dhanwa Nishad, R/o. Village Paraswani, Block Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.)‘ Devendra Kesharwani, Returning Officer (Panchayat) Janpad Panchayat, Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondents before Election Tribunal) The Sub—Divisional officer, and prescribe authority Aarang— Abhanpur, Head Quarter at District Office Raipur (C.G.) (Election Tribunal) y? 1 WR'IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22é/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.4349 OF 2011 / PETITIONER Tulsi Ram Mandey i§ Versus Bhav Singh Pardhi & Others I RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. I Present :- Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9m day of August, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred as to ”the writ petitioner”) seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 30-7-2011 (Annexure — P/5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority in case No.5 C/145 year 2010-11 (Bhav Singh Pardhi v. Tulsi Ram Mandey & Others). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that pursuant to the election held on 31-1-2010, the writ petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Majitha by margin of one vote, Being aggrieved. the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the election petitioner”) preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, V 1993 for recounting of votes by leveling certain allegations. in the said election petition, the writ petitioner filed the reply denying the averments of the election petition. 4. After hearing the parties. the learned Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 30-7-2011 directed for recounting of votes in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Shri Bhaduri placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vidhyawati Lilhare v. Sub—Divisional Officer-cum- Prescribed Officer, Lanji, Balaghat and Others’. 5. In the impugned order, the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority held th‘at on the basis of votes secured by the candidates initially the election petitioner was told as winning candidate, as he had obtained four more votes than the writ petitioner. Thereafter, r 12010 (1) MPLJ 11‘s. the valid votes polled in favour of the election petitioner were cancelled and the writ petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch by margin of one vote. Accordingly, as it was stated that, the election petitioner made an application through his agent nam y;./jé Ramkisun for recounting of votes, which was rejected b th ’ Returning Officer. 6. Thus, the election petitioner had clearly stated in the election petition that the valid votes casted in favour of him were rejected to declare the writ petitioner as elected by margin of one voter The Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter after framing the issues and recorded reasons before taking a decision in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was declared as elected by one vote after rejecting four votes cast in favour of the election petitioner directing recounting of the votes. 7. ln order to maintain the sanctity of electioneer normally recounting of votes should not be ordered, however, in the facts of the case wherein irregularity was writ large, the Tribunal has not committed any error in directing recounting of votes. Thus, the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Vidhyawati Lilhare (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, l have not noticed any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under‘Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. ” 8d!— é’f z .i, Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri