Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. In other words the party filing an application and the party which is called upon to defend such an application must snow the precise extent of the relief prayed for, and the case which has to meet, must be clearly pleaded. The situation would be entirely different where a party has consented to the recounting of votes and upon such recounting of votes an order has been passed in consonance with the provisions of Sub-section (4)(b). It will be difficult for the Court to upset such a decision. Firstly a non-applicant is at liberty to give consent and once such consent is given and is acted upon, such non-applicant would be estopped from challenging the correctness of such order. He would be estopped in law by his conduct from taking a contrary stand. In the case of Radha Kishan petitioner, on 12-5-1995 the respondent had specifically stated that he had no objection if the counting of votes is conducted. It is the result of those counting which was recorded by the Court.

38. There can be no doubt as to the well established and settled position of law that secrecy of ballot paper has to be maintained and the recounting of votes could not be ordered lightly or on the mere asking. The judgment relied upon by the parties mainly relates to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the rules framed therein. A fair process and election, has to be in a free and fair manner so as to attain to its protection of a sacrosanct process which normally would not be interfered by the Court. We have already held that the Courts are neither expected nor required to pass the order in a mechanical manner of on mere asking on an applicant. The Court has to satisfy itself that a prima facie case exists and required averments supported by an affidavit (in accordance with rule) and some documents have been placed on record in support thereof which would justify invoking of the powers of the Court under Section 176(4) of the Act. Definite averments supported by an affidavit in accordance with rules and preferably some documents in support thereof would be sine qua non to the passing of an order for scrutiny and computation/recounting of votes by the Court considering the election petition.

41. Again in the case of P. K. K. Shamsudeen (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under (at page 643) :--

"13. Thus the settled position of law is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes' should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made."

49. Ergo we hold that recounting of votes in such an election cannot be directed on mere asking and in a routine manner. The applicant, if makes definite averments on verification supported by unambiguous details, in accordance with law, supported by documents, if any, and where the applicant makes out a prima facie case to the satisfaction of the Court, nothing prevents the Court from ordering scrutiny and computation of votes on recount in the case falling within restricted scope of Section 176(4)(b) of the Act. In other words, the Court would not be justified in declining such a relief for the reason that the applicant, irrespective of above, must lead evidence through detailed enquiry. Such detailed enquiry is neither postulated nor would be necessary within the purview of said provisions in the limited cases afore-referred.