Lakhan Singh Sarote vs Man Singh

Sanjay Yadav, J.—With consent, matter is heard finally. Order dated 6.4.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority u/s 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 is being assailed; whereby, the election petition preferred by the petitioner against the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch Gram Panchyat Junwani, Tahsil and District Dindori has been dismissed.

Election for Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Junwani was held on 18.1.2010; wherein, respondent No. 1 secured 301 votes, against the petitioner securing 292 votes. The polling was held at two polling booths, i.e., Polling Booth No. 74 (Junwani) and Polling Booth No. 75 (Khurpar). At polling booth No. 74, 66 votes were found invalid; whereas, at polling booth No. 75, 39 votes were found invalid.

Petitioner alleging that at polling booth No. 75, 30 votes casted in favour of the petitioner were wrongly declared invalid, sought for recounting of votes vide election petition u/s 122 of 1993 Act.

The prescribed Authority after taking into consideration the material evidence on record did not find any substance in the challenge; therefore, vide impugned order dismissed the election petitioner by negating the claim that there was a false voting and that, the votes were wrongly declared invalid, holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the objections were ever raised during and that the petitioner did not make any request as required under Rule 80 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.

While questioning the finding arrived at by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner has led this Court through the impugned order, but has utterly failed to point out any perversity. No material evidence is commended at to establish the allegation of false voting or that the counting of votes was not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

As to the effect of non raising an objection under Rule 80(1) of 1995 Rules, it has come to be settled by the decision by Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi and Others, , that the same will not debar the election petitioner from seeking recounting in election petition. Therefore, to said extent the impugned order is not sustainable.

In respect of the aspect of recounting of votes, a Division Bench of this Court in Vidyawati Lilhare v. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Officer, Lanji Balaghat and others: 2010 (4) MPHT 92 relying on the decision by Supreme Court in Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others, M. Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and Others, , Chadat Singh Vs. Bahadur Rama and Others, , Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind and Others, Km. Shradha Devi Vs. Krishna Chandra Pant and Others, A. Younus Kunju Vs. R.S. Unni and Others, P.K.K. Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Others, , Satyanarain Dudhani Vs. Uday Kumar Singh and Others, Bahoran Lal Vs. Ganesh Prasad and Others, Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and Others, , Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Shri Kirshna Behari and Others, , D.P. Sharma Vs. Commissioner and Returning Officer and Others, , Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Others, S. Raghbir Singh Gill Vs. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Others, R. Narayanan Vs. S. Semmalai and Others, M.R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Thachady Prabhakaran and Others, and Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others, HAS HELD: "19.... Filing of an application before the Returning Officer is all compliance of the procedure and the said compliance does not necessarily mean that the election petitioner earns the right to recount before the Election Tribunal. In fact, it is obligatory on the part of the election petitioner to prove that such an application was filed and not entertained and further which is more necessary is that there are prima facie irregularities in the counting. As has been held in catena of decisions, recount of votes can be ordered very rarely and on specific allegations in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting and he who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or rejection of valid votes. Purity of election cannot be tarnished on routine allegations without any pleadings of material facts stating irregularities in counting of votes. There cannot be a roving and fishing enquiry."

The case at hand when adjudged on above principles of law and the given facts leaves no iota of doubt that the Prescribed Officer did not err in holding that the election petition is sans substance.

In view whereof no interference is caused. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.