Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ petition has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in O.P.No. 3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jedcharla, whereby the Election Petition filed by the petitioner ended in dismissal.

2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent along with others namely Afzalunnisa Begum, G. Parvathamma, Razia Sulthana, G. Rama Devi and Laxmamma, contested for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kaverammapet (Jadcharla) in the election held on 17-8-2001. In the said election, K. Lalithamma-2nd respondent was declared elected by a margin of 14 votes. During the process of counting, the petitioner made a request for re-counting. The Election Officer recounted only the invalid votes and declared K. Lalithamma-2nd respondent as duly elected by a margin of 14 votes. The petitioner filed election petition contending that she sought for recounting of entire votes whereas the Election Officer recounted only invalid votes. Further allegation made in the election petition is that some votes polled in favour of the petitioner had been erroneously shown as having been polled in favour of the 2nd respondent when the electricity went off. The respondents filed counters resisting the election petition. Both the respondents took the stand before the election Tribunal that there were no irregularities either in conducting the election or in counting the votes polled and that no application was filed by the petitioner or any one of the contesting candidates for recounting before the Election Officer.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal went on wrong premise that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order for recounting. He further submits that total number of votes polled in favour of the contesting candidates and the invalid votes put together do not tally with the total number of votes polled and, therefore, it is a fit case to order for recounting of the votes polled. A further submission has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requested for re-counting soon after completion of the counting, but the Election Officer ordered for recounting of only invalid votes instead of recounting the entire votes and thus, in the circumstances of the case, the Election Tribunal ought to have ordered for re-counting of the total number of votes polled.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that R.W.1, who is Election Officer, has clarified the discrepancy as to certain corrections appearing on Ex.B-1-Original Form No. 17. He laid much emphasis on the cross-examination of R.W.1.

7. It is stated by R.W.1 in his cross-examination as follows:

"After counting of votes-is concluded and after tallying the votes, form No. 17 will be filled up. In the instant case also, the same method was followed. After verification of doubtful votes, there was variation in Ex.A-3. As such corrections were made. Ex.B-1 was handed over to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer on the day of elections. It is true that in Ex.A-3, there is correction of figures pertaining to Auto symbol from 1218 to 1118. Even pertaining to symbol carromboard from 791 to 790 and similarly there is correction in the figures of invalid votes from 184 to 182. Likewise, there is a correction for the symbol of fluit. It is true as per Ex.A-3, the total number of votes polled is 6387 and in Ex.A-3 it is not written in letters for the corrected figures. At the time of returning the ballot boxes, I handed over Ex.B-1 to the MPDO. I have written the words for the corrected letters in Ex.B-1 before handing over the ballot boxes to MPDO. After obtaining signatures of the persons present, I have corrected Ex.B-1. As per Ex.B-1, the candidate of Auto rickshaw symbol has got 1168 and for carromboard 791 and rejected votes 182 and the total number of votes polled was 6385. It is true that in Ex.A-3, at page No. 2, column Nos. 8 and 9 were kept blank whereas in original Ex.B-1 they were filled up. It is true that in Ex.B-1 the total number of votes polled is corrected. It is not true to suggest that the corrections made in Ex.B-1 are just before filing the document before the Court only to cover up my lapses during counting of votes. My signature is visible in Ex.A-3."

8. It is no more in dispute that a request was made by the petitioner for recounting. The Election Officer ordered for re-counting of only invalid votes. The Election Tribunal went on the wrong premise that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order for recounting unless a written requisition was submitted by the candidate before the Election Officer at the time of counting.

9. It is held by the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi and Ors., , that after declaration of results, the Returning Officer has no power either to direct re-count or to change the results of the election. Once the result is declared, the only remedy for an aggrieved party is an election petition under Section 122. In such a case, the Court or the Tribunal is bound to consider the plea and where a case is made out, it may direct recount depending upon the evidence led by the parties.