1. Election dispute — irregularity in counting — re-counting ordered by High Court — challenge to validity of re-counting and invalidation of votes. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1240
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : K.Ramaswamy
S.K.Mahaboob Bee
Versus
State Election Commissioner
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 8/12/96
Important Points
When a statutory remedy of filing an election petition before an Election Tribunal is available, the court should not interfere with the election result or the validity of vote counting through writ jurisdiction.
Subject
Election Law - Local Body Elections
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Election Law - Statutory Remedy - Validity of re-counting of votes - Where a statutory remedy of filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal is provided, it is appropriate that the Tribunal determines the legality of the declaration of votes as invalid and the process of re-counting - Court declines to interfere with the result of the declaration in the presence of such a remedy. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An election for the office of the head of a Gram Panchayat was held. Following an irregularity in counting, the High Court directed a re-counting, resulting in the appellant being declared elected. A subsequent writ petition challenging the validity of the re-counting and the invalidation of certain votes was allowed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since a statutory remedy for filing an election petition is available, the Election Tribunal is the appropriate forum to examine the legality of the re-counting and the invalidation of votes.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the election result via a writ petition when a statutory remedy of filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal existed.
Ratio Decidendi: The availability of a specific statutory remedy, namely an election petition, precludes the court from interfering with the election declaration through writ jurisdiction, as the specialized Tribunal is the proper authority to adjudicate on the validity of votes and counting.
Result: Judgment of the High Court reversed and the writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
An election for the office of the head of a Gram Panchayat was held. Following an irregularity in counting, the High Court directed a re-counting, resulting in the appellant being declared elected. A subsequent writ petition challenging the validity of the re-counting and the invalidation of certain votes was allowed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since a statutory remedy for filing an election petition is available, the Election Tribunal is the appropriate forum to examine the legality of the re-counting and the invalidation of votes.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the election result via a writ petition when a statutory remedy of filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal existed.
Ratio Decidendi: The availability of a specific statutory remedy, namely an election petition, precludes the court from interfering with the election declaration through writ jurisdiction, as the specialized Tribunal is the proper authority to adjudicate on the validity of votes and counting.
Result: Judgment of the High Court reversed and the writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
election law
-
election disputes
- statutory remedies (Para 3)
-
election disputes
-
election law
Table of Contents
2. Validity of re-counting process — legality of declaring certain votes as invalid. (Para 3 )
3. Where a statutory remedy of filing an election petition is available, the specialized Tribunal is the appropriate forum to determine the legality of vote counting. (Para 3 )
4. Availability of a statutory remedy for election disputes precludes interference by the court when a specialized Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate the matter. (Para 3 )
5. High Court judgment reversed — writ petition dismissed — respondent granted leave to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal. (Para 3 )
6. What is the appropriate remedy for challenging the validity of vote counting in an election where a statutory remedy exists?
The appropriate remedy is to file an election petition before the designated Election Tribunal, as the Tribunal is the proper authority to determine the legality of vote counting and the invalidation of votes. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(3) THE admitted position is that the election to the office of the Sarpanch of Mangalagiripadu Gram Panchayat, Guntur District reserved for women was held on 27-6-1995. It would appear that there was some irregularity in counting. Therefore, writ petition came to be filed in the first instance and direction was given for re-counting by the High Court. Pursuant thereto, the re-counting was done in which the appellant secured 513 while Smt Khasim Bee, 4th respondent secured 510 votes. Consequently, the appellant was declared to have been elected. The second writ petition came to be filed which was allowed in the impugned order dated 19-12-1995. Several contentions have been raised in the writ petition as regards the validity of the re-counting as some of the votes were declared invalid. Since statutory remedy of filing the election petition has been provided it would be appropriate that the Tribunal goes into the legality or otherwise of the declaration of some votes as invalid and of re-counting as alleged in this case. Under these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the result of the declaration. However, the 4th respondent is given time to file within 30 days from today an election petition before the Election Tribunal. The judgment of the High Court stands reversed and the writ petition dismissed.
(4) THE appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
