AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner would call in question the final order passed in the election petition preferred against her election to the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khutadahra, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa.
In the election to the Office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, the petitioner was declared elected as she was found to have secured 247 votes as against 241 votes secured by the respondent No.5.
The respondent No.5 filed election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 mainly alleging that the votes polled in her favour have wrongly been counted in favour of the elected candidates and further that the votes polled by certain voters in her favour have been declared invalid and illegal. After a full blown trial, the Election Tribunal i.e. the SDO, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa directed for holding a recounting which was conducted and in the said recounting, the petitioner secured 234 votes and the respondent No.5 secured 240 votes.
On the strength of the votes polled by the respondent No.5, which was the highest number of votes polled in her favour, the Election Tribunal allowed the election petition, set aside the election of the present petitioner and declared the respondent No.5 as the duly elected Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there being no irregularity in counting of votes nor the respondent No.5 having applied for a recounting immediately after the counting was over, the Election Tribunal should not have directed for recounting.
I have seen the material placed before this Court and have heard learned counsel for the respondents.
The Election Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons as to why recounting is necessary in the matter. In the opinion of this Court, the recounting was all the mode necessary because the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are both named Kaushilya Bai, therefore, it was possible that some votes counted in favour of respondent No.5 may have been counted in favour of the present petitioner and vice versa. There is no challenge in this petition that the recounting itself was not in accordance with law or that in the recounting also, there was some irregularity in counting of votes. Once the petitioner accepts that the recounting has been done in accordance with law and is not aggrieved by the counting of votes in her favour or in favour of the respondent No.5 during the recounting, the arithmetic is not in petitioner's favour.
As a result, the writ petition has no substance. It fails and is hereby dismissed.