IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6074 of 2007 Date of decision:02.03.2009 Om Parkash ...Petitioner versus Ishwar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. In an election petition before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa filed under the relevant provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, the Court passed an order directing recounting of votes, having due regard to the fact that the elected candidate had won on a margin of two votes and the counter allegations regarding that character of votes polled in the name of respective parties. In particular, the contention of the petitioner assailing the result was that 53 votes which were cast in his favour had been wrongly not counted and 18 which were invalid had been counted valid in favour of the respondent. The contention of the petitioner also was that immediately after the voting was complete by the Returning Officer, the petitioner had given a petition and sought for recounting of votes as provided under Rule 6.9 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994. The Election Officer in Civil Revision No.6074 of 2007 - 2 - his evidence however denied the receipt of any such request for recounting and consequently, the copy of the requisition allegedly made by the petitioner before the Court below was not accepted, although it was assigned Mark-A before the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that since the respondent had actually moved an interlocutory petition for recounting and it had been dismissed and when no new facts had been brought out in trial, there was no justification for ordering recounting of votes. The second objection was that the Returning Officer had denied receiving any requisition for recounting of votes under Rule 6.9 and hence there was no justification for the Court to direct recounting. 3. The order in an interlocutory application is invariably only for an interim disposal and such an order cannot pilot the ultimate fate of the proceedings at the final conclusion of the trial. On relevant consideration of all facts at the conclusion, the Court can always take a view differently from what was taken at the interlocutory stage. After all, when the interim order is passed, all the parameters that fall for consideration for the ultimate disposal of the case are never available. Therefore, I reject the contention that the recounting could not have been ordered because it was disallowed at the interlocutory stage. 4. The so-called denial of the Returning Officer that there had been no requisition for recounting cannot by itself take away the discretion of the Election Court in an appropriate case to direct recounting of votes. It has been already observed that the Election Court Civil Revision No.6074 of 2007 -3 - found that the margin of votes between the elected candidate and the next candidate was twin, viz., 2 votes and there existed the allegations of invalid votes with more than the difference in margin between the elected candidate and the next highest candidate. The discretion in my view, has been properly exercised by the Election Court and there is no scope for intervention in revision. 5. The Civil Revision is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.03.2009 sanjeev