LPA No. 920 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 920 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 05, 2010 Dara Singh ...... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mrs. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Mukul Mudgal, CJ(Oral): This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.07.2010 confirming the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Amritsar by which recounting of votes for the election held for the post of Panches of Gram Panchyat of village Devidasspura, was ordered. The learned Single Judge had noted as follows:- “A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the elected candidates were delaying disposal of the case and on various dates they had not caused their appearance. After hearing LPA No. 920 of 2010 2 counsel for respondent No.3, the Court had ordered recounting of votes. Taking overall perspective into consideration,this Court is of the opinion that where there is a difference of only one vote between the elected candidate and the candidate who has been unsuccessful,recounting is justifiable.” In the light of above finding, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The only submission of Mrs. Rupinder K. Thind, learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no averment in the election petition regarding the number of votes polled and, therefore, recounting on the basis of the difference of one vote could not have been ordered. We have perused the averment in the election petition which reads as follows:- “That at the time of counting of votes, the respondent Nos.16 and 17 were found by the agents of the petitioner that they were counting the votes polled in favour of petitioner, in the account of respondents No. 1 to 15 and when they raised objection they were turned out of the premises forcibly.” The aforesaid assertion that the agents of the private respondents were turned out of the premises forcibly was not tested in cross-examination. In light of such an assertion which has not been tested in cross-examination, it is not possible for the private respondents to have asserted the number of votes polled. In any event if the recounting of votes ordered based on the fact that there is a difference of one vote, is not in dispute. In this view of the matter, apart from other factors, the order of LPA No. 920 of 2010 3 learned Single Judge subserves the ends of justice. Accordingly no interference is warranted in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 05, 2010 sunita