While allowing I.A.No.840 of 2013, by order dated 25.02.2014, the Election Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in ordering recounting of votes. Having regard to the consequences emanating from the direction of re- counting, which may even breach the secrecy of the ballot, the doctrine of prejudice is an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count. Similarly, a narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does not, per se, give rise to a presumption that there was an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. In the first instance, material facts in this behalf have to be stated clearly in the election petition and then proved by cogent evidence. The onus to prove the allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election process, on the part of the Election Officer, is on the election petitioner and not on the Election Officer. (Kattinokkula Murali Krishna3). Recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The petitioner who seeks recount of votes must be able to place on record prima facie proof in support of the allegations made in the election petition. Merely because some serious allegations have been made, it is not proper to order recount of votes on the premise that no prejudice would be caused to the returned candidate by ordering such recount. (Kommuri Pratap Reddy5). Absence of prejudice is not a factor which should have weighed with the Election Tribunal in passing the interim order for recounting of votes.
