AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, Judge
The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing the orders/ directions dated 19.1.2012 passed by the Authorized Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in an election petition having been filed by the fourth respondent against the petitioner. In fact 4th respondent had applied for recounting of the whole of ballet papers in respect of election conducted to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kumarsain, but after consideration, this prayer was rejected. Since there was an issue whether the valid votes cast in favour of 4th respondent were illegally declared invalid, it was in that context the Authorized Officer while pressing into service the provisions of Section 169 of the Panchayati Raj Act, ordered the summoning of Panchayat Inspector, Gram Panchayat Kumarsain alongwith 93 invalid votes declared invalid by the then Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) at the time of counting alongwith guidelines in this behalf.
Learned counsel for the petitioner herein vehemently argued that these directions were wholly unwarranted against the law and facts, on the ground that once the issue to recount the votes was decided and rejected by the ARO, then the question of calling the invalid votes for deciding the issue was not necessary. In my opinion this argument is worth rejecting.
A perusal of Section 169 aforesaid empowers the Authorized Officer to summon and examine su-moto any person whose evidence appears him to be material. Keeping in view the issues aforesaid, in absence of the guidelines and examining invalid votes, the aforesaid issue cannot be decided. The endeavour of the Authorised Officer is and should be to reach the truth, to come to the conclusion as to how the result of the petitioner was materially effected. Thus, I do not find any error of jurisdiction by the Authorised Officer or the breach of any law, therefore, the present petition is dismissed in limine, so also the pending application(s), if any.