Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Mohanty next submitted that no complaint had been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 as envisaged under Rule 92-C of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Election Rules, 1965 (for short, "the Rules") nor had any motion for re-counting been made on his behalf under Rule 51 of the Rules. Similarly, no complaint regarding, booth capturing and tampering at the time of election was made in terms of Rule 56 of the Rules and yet when the Court received packets containing ballot papers from the B.D.O., opposite party No. 2, there were gross discrepancies found in the packets of booth Nos. 3 and 7 which would go to show that the packets in respect of the two booths had been tampered. Mr. Mohanty argued that all these facts should have weighed with the learned Civil Judge while deciding whether to pass an order for re-examination and re-counting of ballot papers.