CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2215 OF 2009. --- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - --- RASHIDA KHATOON w/o Abdul Kayum, resident of village Wajidpur, P.O. Kare,P.S. Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. RAM WATI DEVI w/o Dodaram Prasad of village Kare,P.S. and District- Sheikhpura. 2. Sunaina Devi w/o Raj kumar Bind, resident of Kare, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura. 3. Janki Devi w/o Chabila Bind, resident of Kare, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura. 4.Lalaita Devi w/o Raghu Nandan Singh, resident of Kare, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura. 5. Basanti Devi w/o Vijay Thakur, resident of village Matokhar, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura. 6. Sita Devi w/o Nawal Prasad Bind, resident of Kare, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura 7. Sahina Khatun w/o Ajaj Ahmad, resident of village Wajidpur, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura. 8. Kumari Devi w/o Jitendra Prasad, resident of village Lakhana, P.S. and district- Sheikhpura. 9. Soni Devi w/o Suresh Bind, resident of Kare, P.S. and district – Sheikhpura 10. The State of Bihar through Scretary, Bihar,Patna. 11. Secretary, State Eelction Commission, Bihar,Son Bhawan,3rd floor, Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 12. District Magistrate- cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Sheikhpura. 13. Block Development Officer cum Returning Officer, Sheikhpura. ...............Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : MR.AMIR ALAM For respondent no.1 : Mr. S.B.K.Manglam. For Election Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. For respondent nos. 11 and 12 : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 10. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH 2 Navaniti Pd. Singh,J:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, contesting respondent no.1, the State and the State Election Commission. By this writ application, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal i.e. learned Munsif, Sheikhpura, as passed in Election Case no. 2 of 2006, dated 24.9.2008. Petitioner has contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Kare in the district of Sheikhpura. She lost to respondent no.1 and as such filed the said election petition. The solitary ground taken in the election petition was that in course of counting she and her election agents had made several written protests with regard to wrong rejection of her votes and had sought for recounting. They did not receive any favourable response and hence election petition with a prayer to re-count. Issues having been framed, evidences were recorded on behalf of the petitioner, who was the election petitioner. The only material that was brought on record to show recount was a petition, which was marked as Exhibit- D. The respondents, who were the opposite parties in the election petition made out a case that no doubt the petitioner had filed an application for recount , it was duly accepted and acted upon. Recount was made and being satisfied thereafter the results were declared. For this, on behalf of respondents, due documentary evidences were 3 produced wherein Returning Officer had noted acceptance of petitioner’s petition for recount and Form 20 which clearly shows that there was a recount and petitioner’s endorsement thereon with regard to satisfy on recount. In this writ petition, these facts have not been challenged as perverse or without any basis nor has been challenged that there was any other material evidence, which was not taken into account. If that be so, I have no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, The 8th April, 2010, S.Singh(NAFR). (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)