IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5409 of 2008 SURAJ SINGH CHANDRAVANSHI s/o Sri Nanaku Singh, Chandravanshi, resident of Mouse Aima, P.S. Khizersarai, District- Gaya . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Panchayati Raj,Bihar, Patna. 2. State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through its Chief Election Commissioner. 3. The Chief Election Commissioner,State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan,Birchand Patel Path,Patna. 4. The Collector cum District Election Officer, Panchayat, Gaya. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Neem Chak Bathani,Gaya. 6. The Block Development Officer cum Election Officer (Panchayat), Khizersarai Block,District- Gaya. 7. Krishna Thakur son of late Gardhari Thakur, resident of village- Padumchak,P.S. Khizersarai,District-Gaya. 8. Krishna Prasad s/o Ram Lakhan Ram, resident of village& P.O. Maksoodpur,P.S. Khizersarai, District- Gaya. 9. Arvind Prajapat s/o Sri Kameshwar Prajapat, resident of village & P.O. Maksoodpur,P.S. Khizersarai, District- Gaya. 10. Guddu Kumar Singh Chandravanshi s/o Mundrika Singh, resident of village- Aima, P.O. Aima Bazar, P.S.Khizersarai, District- Gaya. 11. Manoj Kumar son of Sri Baleshwar Ram, resident of village & P.O. Maksoodpur,P.S. Khizersarai,District- Gaya. 12. Vijay Kumar s/o Madan Singh, resident of village & P.O.- Maksoodpur, P.S. Khizersarai, District- Gaya. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, A.C.to G.P.XI For the Commission : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh. 2 3.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner challenges the order , as passed by Sub judge-VI, Gaya, in E.P. No.1 of 2006/ 3 of 2006, dated 30.1.2008 by which the election petition, as filed by the petitioner, was rejected. The petitioner had founded election petition on the ground that after counting, he had been declare elected but subsequently certificate was wrongly issued in favour of the contesting respondent by manipulating the votes. After the result was declared, he had filed an application for recount ,which - 2 - was not entertained and as such by wrong counting the respondent was made to win. I have perused the judgment impugned. In my view, the writ petition cannot be entertained and the election petition was rightly rejected. Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 clearly stipulates that an application for re-count has to be made before the results are declared. Admittedly, in the present case, on petitioner’s own showing, after the results were declared and certificate was issued, the petitioner prayed for re-count, which naturally could not be entertained. At the time of counting, petitioner made no grievance. Petitioner then submits that a mere look of Form 20 and Form 21 would show that there has been an interpolation. Petitioner had secured higher number of votes being 686 but by interpolation the private- respondent was declared elected. Form 20 and Form 21 are Annexures 3 and 3/A to the writ petition. A bare reading of Annexure 3 and 3/A would show that if any interpolation/over-writing has been made, it has been made in the number of votes of the petitioner, which petitioner admits is 686 as shown in the two Forms .There is no over- writing and/or interpolation in respect of number of votes given to the winning candidate. Thus, seen on both counts, the petitioner has no case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)