AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Dwivedi for the third respondent.
The petition owes its advent in this Court to the order dated 1171995 passed by the SubDivisional Officer Handia, Allahabad thereby directing recount of the ballot papers pertaining to election in respect of the office of member Gram Panchayat Patwan Mutfarka Block Pratappur Tahsil Handia District Allahabad. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner secured 21 votes as against 20 votes secured by the third respondent and accordingly the petitioner was declared successful by a slender margin of one vote. The third respondentGanesh Kumar took recourse to filing an election petition challenging the validity of the declaration made in favour of the petitioner. Paragraph 6 of the election petition being germans to the question of recounting maybe abstracted below.
The SubDivisional Officer has allowed recounting of the ballot papers on the application moved on behalf of the third respondent on the generalised ground of alleged irregularity and corruption during the course of counting. Admittedly, the evidence in the case has not yet been adduced. In Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, 1985 UPLBEC p. 317, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the following two conditions must coexist for directing inspection and recount of ballot papers :
(i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains a ground on which the election of the respondent is being questioned as also summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground.
(ii) the authority is prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such inspection is imparatively necessary for deciding the dispute for doing complete justice between the parties.
It is thus evident that prima facie satisfaction to be arrived at by the SubDivisional Officer about existence of the ground on which the election is sought to be set aside, must be based on some material produced before the SubDivisional Officer. Admittedly, the details of the two invalid ballot papers allegedly counted as valid in favour of the returned candidate have not been specified in the election petition and no material was placed before the SubDivisional Officer to substantiate the allegations that the two invalid ballot papers were reckoned as valid in favour of the returned candidate. The allegation that the counting staff was nobbled with bribe by the candidate is too vague without there being any prima facie evidence in this regard. In the circumstances therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed with liberty reserved to the SubDivisional Officer to pass afresh orders allowing inspection and recounting of ballot papers after the parties have led evidence in the case. It goes without saying that the SubDivisional Officer shall decide the election petition expeditiously in accordance with law.