Civil Revision No.2569 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.10921-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.2569 of 2009 Date of Decision:02.09.2009 Geeta Rani .....Petitioner versus Deputy Director-cum-Presiding Officer and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10921-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.2569 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 02.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which on the application filed by respondent No.2, the record of elections was summoned and recounting of votes was ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for recounting of votes which has been impugned in the revision petition is a non-speaking one and the same is, therefore, unsustainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner in cross-examination before the Election Civil Revision No.2569 of 2009 2 Tribunal, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-15, had stated that she had no objection if votes were counted again. He has also referred to the reply filed by the petitioner to the application moved by respondent No.2 for recounting of votes wherein the petitioner had stated that the statement made by her with regard to no objection of recounting of votes would not make any difference. On the strength of the case reported as Surjit Kaur versus Jaswant Kaur, 2000(3) P.L.R., 848, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that once consent had been given for recounting of votes, the petitioner would be bound by the said statement made in the Court. Answering the submission of the respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the statement in cross examination is being misconstrued as the petitioner had not given any consent for recounting of votes and the actual words as recorded by the Tribunal are “I have no objection if votes are again”. According to the learned counsel, the word 'counted' is being added in this statement which legally is not permissible. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Before delving into the legal issue, it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether the petitioner had raised any objection for recounting or not. Examining the material, no doubt, a perusal of Annexure P-15, translated copy of the statement made by the petitioner in the cross- examination, reveals that it has been stated therein that “I have no objection if votes are again”. However, a perusal of Annexure P-5 shows that in the reply to the application for recounting of votes filed by the petitioner, the following lines have been incorporated:- “It hardly makes any difference if the answering respondent had made the statement regarding no Civil Revision No.2569 of 2009 3 objection for recounting”. On cumulatively reading of the abovesaid documents, the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner did not have any objection to the recounting of the votes. Once that is so, this Court in Surjit Kaur's case(supra) recorded that since the recounting of votes was done on the basis of consent of both the sides, no valid and legal objection can now be raised regarding the order of recounting. The relevant observations made therein read thus:- “Since the recounting of votes was done on the consent of both the sides and in the recounting Smt.Jaswant Kaur was found having polled 44 votes as against 42 votes polled in favour of Smt.Surjit Kaur, no valid and legal objection can now be raised regarding the order of recounting”. Accordingly, it is held that in the present case, the Tribunal was right in ordering recounting of the votes. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. September 02, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE