Civil Revision No.4485 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4485 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.9.2011 Rasid ...Petitioner Versus Election Tribnunal-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders dated 7.3.2011 and 25.5.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat whereby election petition of the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed with costs as on recounting it was found that petitioner has polled less votes than the successful candidate. 2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition are that petitioner-Rasid had challenged the election of respondent no.2 as Sarpanch of village Adhmi, District Panipat held on 6.07.2010, on the ground that the Presiding Officer without showing the counting on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) directed the respondents as well as other candidates to note the votes polled in favour of each candidate, but when he was requested to show them the actual counting on the machine, the Presiding Officer refused to do so by stating that as per election rules, it was not necessary to show the counting/EVMs to anyone. Vide order dated 22.02.2011, the Election Tribunal, had ordered the re-counting of the votes forming an Civil Revision No.4485 of 2011 -2- **** opinion that secrecy of the of the ballots is not going to be violated by order of recounting and that true picture would emerge only after the EVMs are brought in the Court and re-counting is done. The petitioner-respondent no.2 challenged the order dated 22.2.2011 before this Court by way of Civil Revision No.1454 of 2011. This Court on 1.3.2011 had ordered the recounting of votes but directed that the result would not be disclosed to any one. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, recounting was done by respondent no.1-Election Tribunal and result was sealed. Subsequently, vide order dated 17.5.2011 Revision Petition No.1454 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court and as such order dated 22.2.2011 passed by respondent no.1 was restored. The Election Tribunal-respondent no.1 vide order dated 25.5.2011 had declared the result and election petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The Tribunal after the recounting of votes had been done on 7.3.2011 had put the result under sealed cover as directed by this Court in Civil Revision No.1454 of 2011. The Election Tribunal had recorded that petitioner had polled 470 votes whereas respondent no.2 who was successful candidate had 484 votes in her favour. After the dismissal of Civil Revision Petition No.1454 of 2011 by this Court on 17.5.2011, the result was declared on the basis of recounting done on 7.3.2011 vide order dated 25.5.2011. It would be expedient to refer to conclusions of the Election Tribunal on recounting done on 7.3.2011 which reads thus:- “I have opened the 3 EVMs No.21003 B-17190 and B-17014, after opening the seals I operated the said machines one by one. First of all E.V.M. pertaining to Booth No.79 was opened and operated and it was found that candidates No.1 to 5 respectively polled 172, 46, 189, 127 & 14 votes (total 548 Civil Revision No.4485 of 2011 -3- **** votes). Similarly, E.V.M. of Booth No.78 was opened and operated and it was found that candidates No.1 to 5 respectively polled 177, 29, 113, 95 & 6 votes (total votes 420). Similarly, E.V.M. of Booth No.77 was opened & operated and it was found that candidates No.1 to 5 respectively polled 135, 106, 168, 112 & 002 (total 523 votes). The said data was compiled and compared with the result sheet Ex. P1 and it is found that said result sheet is correct. Petitioner in all has polled 470 votes, respondent no.1 Kitabo has polled 484 votes, respondent No.2 Daud has polled 181 votes, respondent No.3 Rohit has polled 334 votes, and respondent no.4 Ved Pal has polled 22 votes. Thus, upon recounting it is found that respondent no.1 has polled 484 votes, the highest number of votes and petitioner has polled 470 votes. Thus, respondent no.1 was rightly declared the winning candidate. Let the orders sheets be sealed and be kept in safe custody till the awaiting of further orders of Hon'ble High Court. To come up on 23.3.2011.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that there was any error in exercise of power by the Election Tribunal which could be held to be without jurisdiction. Further the recounting on the basis of which respondent no.2 was declared elected could not be shown to be perverse or erroneous in any manner. 6. Thus, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. September 26, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge Civil Revision No.4485 of 2011 -4- ****