Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karam Singh vs The Additional District Judge And Ors. on 11 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR692, 1997 A I H C 2824, 1997 REVLR 1 300, (1997) 3 RECCIVR 131, (1997) 2 LANDLR 498, (1997) 116 PUN LR 692, (1997) 3 LJR 713
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan, K.S. Kumaran
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sadhura was held on 15th December, 1994. There was a direct contest between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 for the said post. Petitioner was declared elected. Nasib Singh respondent No. 4 filed election petition Under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on various grounds. It was prayed that election of Karam Singh as Sarpanch be set aside and instead he be declared elected as Sarpanch or in the alternative fresh election be held for electing Sarpanch.
2. During the pendency of the election petition before the Election Tribunal, respondent No. 4 made an application for recount of votes and made an offer to give up the challenge to the election on all other grounds except a recount provided petitioner agrees for the same. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, agreed to the offer made by the respondent No. 4. Statement of the counsel was recorded and read over and after accepting the same, it was signed by the counsel. In view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties, Election Tribunal ordered a recount of the votes. In recount, it was found that respondent No. 4 had polled more votes than the petitioner, as a consequence thereof election of the petitioner was set aside and respondent No. 4 was declared elected. Present petition has been filed against the aforesaid order.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner had never authorised his counsel to make a statement on his behalf to a recount and that statement of the counsel could not provide a valid ground for recount. We do not find any substance in this submission. We have perused the certified copy of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner before the Election Tribunal. Counsel had agreed to a recount and on the basis of the consent given by the counsel for the petitioner the recount was ordered. Counsel appearing for the petitioner had the authority to make the statement on behalf of his client and commit to a recount on his behalf. After loosing the election in the recount, petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and say that he had never authorised his counsel to make statement on his behalf agreeing for a recount. Counsel had signed the statement made by him after it was read over to him and accepted by him to be correct.
4. Counsel for the petitioner then contended that recount could not be ordered on the basis of the consent of the parties or their counsel. We find no substance in this submission either. It has been held by this Court in Bharat Singh v. Dalip Singh and Ors., (1996-1) 112 P.L.R.70 that a recount can be ordered on the basis of an agreement between the parties, it was held as under:-
"35. Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no recount can be allowed on the basis of the statement of the parties. It was contended that where the election petition does not disclose any cause of action or where there was no evidence to support the allegations made in the election petition for a recount, no recount can be ordered because any statement made by the returned candidates, agreeing for a recount, will be against law and, therefore, cannot be acted upon. As against this, the stand taken by the counsel appearing for the respondents is that the compromise regarding recount is a valid agreement and binding between the parties."
"36. Whether a recount can be ordered on the basis of an agreement between the parties, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in Sukhand Raj Singh v. Ram Harsh Misra and Ors., A.I.R, 1977 S.C. 681, Supreme Court of India, ordered recount on the basis of agreement between the parties. While considering such an agreement, it was held by their Lordships that [emphasis (in italics) supplied]. This agreement, we may add, does not violate any of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including Section 97 thereof"
5. For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.