Civil Revision challenging an order directing recounting of votes in a Panchayat election where the margin was two votes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower court correctly ordered a recount due to wrongly rejected valid votes.
The revision petition was dismissed; the order for recounting of votes was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4524 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 14 , 2009
Jasbir Singh
...........Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Charan and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Aggarwal,Advocate for the respondents
Sabina, J.
Shiv Charan-respondent No.1 filed the Election petition under Section 176(4)(b) of the Panchayati Raj Act,1994 (for short `the Act'). Vide the impugned order dated 24.8.2006, recounting of votes was ordered. Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely because, there was a difference of two votes between the elected candidate and the election petitioner-Shiv Charan, there was no reason to order recounting of votes. In fact, recounting of votes had been done and Shiv Charan was found unsuccessful. The election process was done in a peaceful manner including the counting of votes. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has place reliance on Subhash Chand vs. Ramesh Kumari and another 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 777; Bharat Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others 1996(1)RRR 121 and Baldev Singh vs.Shinder Pal Singh and another 2006(4)RCR(Civil) 891.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M) 2
submitted that 21 votes had been wrongly rejected and since the margin between the elected candidate and respondent No.1 was of two votes only, the recounting of votes had been rightly ordered. He has placed reliance on Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others 2004(1)Civ.C.C.212 and Raj Devi vs. Smt.Santosh and others 1996(3) PLR 106.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
In the present case, there is a margin of only two votes in between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 21 votes were rejected by the Returning Officer. The case of respondent No.1 was that his valid votes had been wrongly rejected,whereas, invalid votes had been counted in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also made a complaint before the Higher authorities regarding the illegality in counting of votes. After examining the evidence led before it, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, had, thus, rightly ordered that the recounting of votes be done to impart justice between the parties. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are on different facts. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge
December 14, 2009
arya
C.R.No. 4524 of 2006 (O&M) 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of recounting of votes when the election margin was only two votes and 21 votes were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer.
Whether the impugned order of recounting of votes warrants reversal in a revision petition filed under the Panchayati Raj Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Chand vs. Ramesh Kumari and anotherReferred¶13
Subhash Chand vs. Ramesh Kumari and another 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 777
Bharat Singh vs. Dalip Singh and othersReferred¶13
Bharat Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others 1996(1)RRR 121
Baldev Singh vs. Shinder Pal Singh and anotherReferred¶13
Baldev Singh vs.Shinder Pal Singh and another 2006(4)RCR(Civil) 891
Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and othersReferred¶16
Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others 2004(1)Civ.C.C.212
Raj Devi vs. Smt. Santosh and othersReferred¶16
Raj Devi vs. Smt.Santosh and others 1996(3) PLR 106
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jasbir Singh
Shiv Charan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
