Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Gitaben Khodabhai Parmar vs Meenaben Amitbhai Parmar & 2 on 13 December, 2017

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.Y. Kogje

                 C/SCA/22146/2017                                           ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22146 of 2017
         ==========================================================
                    GITABEN KHODABHAI PARMAR....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                  MEENABEN AMITBHAI PARMAR & 2....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
                            Date : 13/12/2017
                                     ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. The   petitioner   has   challenged   an   order   dated  09.11.2017   passed   by   the   learned   Principal   Civil  Judge,   Kheda,   below   application   Exh.21   in   Election  Petition No.3 of 2017.   The petitioner had contested  in   the   election   to   the   post   of   Sarpanch,  village:Vavdi. Upon counting of votes, the petitioner  was declared to have received 392 votes.   Successful  candidate Minaben Parmar has received 504 votes.  Yet  another   candidate   Minaxiben   Shenva  who   has   received  406   votes.     The   petitioner   filed   the   said   election  petition,   in   which,   by   way   of   interim   order,   she  prayed   for   recounting   of   votes.     Her   application  Exh.21 came to be dismissed by the learned Judge by  Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:00:31 IST 2017 C/SCA/22146/2017 ORDER the   impugned   order.     The   learned   Judge   noted   that  there   was   no   evidence   to   call   for   recounting.     The  margin   between   the   election   petitioner   and   the  returned  candidate   was   of   112  votes.     Learned   Judge  was of the opinion that without sufficient evidence at  an   interim   stage,   recounting   cannot   be   ordered.  Learned Judge relied on the decision of the Division  Bench   of   this   Court   in   case   of  Javantiben   Bhikaji   Thaveracha v. Rangaben Manaji Thaveracha  reported in  2003 (2) G.L.H. 306.

2. We  do  not  find  any  legal  error  in  the  impugned  order.     There   is   no   material   on   record  establishing  requirement of recounting. The learned Judge correctly  placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case  of  Javantiben   Bhikaji   Thaveracha  (supra)   in   which,  referring   to   various   judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court  and   this   Court,   the   law   on   ordering   recounting   of  votes in an Election Petition was discussed.

3. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:00:31 IST 2017 C/SCA/22146/2017 ORDER (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) ANKIT Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:00:31 IST 2017