After finally deciding an election petition by allowing it and directing recount, the prescribed authority becomes functus officio lacking jurisdiction for subsequent orders declaring results based on recount.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Leave Granted.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

2. This Appeal arises out of an Election issue between the Appellant i.e. (Urmila Devi) and Respondent No. 3 (Manoj Devi). The facts in a nutshell is as follows:

2.1. Both the Appellant, Respondent No. 3 and 18 others stood for Three Tier Panchayat (Pradhan) Election, 2021 held in respect of Election of Pradhan of Parauli Sughapur Village, Block - Jaithara, Teshil - Aliganj, District - Etah, Uttar Pradesh.

2.2. After the voting was over, the counting of votes went for almost two complete dates i.e. it commenced from 2nd May 2021 at 11.00 a.m. and got completed on 03rd May 2021 at 10.00 a.m. As per the version of the Appellant, many candidates complained about the irregularities during the counting of votes and about the manner in which elections were conducted. However, the Authorities completed the voting and declared the results. As per the results, Respondent No. 3 was declared as Returned Candidate and the Appellant herein was declared as having lost by a margin of 2 votes.

2.3. Aggrieved by the procedural discrepancies during the counting of votes and aggrieved by the results of the elections, the Appellant filed an Election Petition No. 2646 of 2021¹ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Election Petition’] in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority), Aliganj, District-Etah² [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the SDO’] under Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.³ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] He also prayed for re-counting of votes as there was a difference between the number of total valid votes and number of valid votes counted.

3. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 contended as follows:

3.1. The Appellant challenged the 2021 Gram Panchayat Pradhan election of Parauli Suhagpur (District Etah) alleging serious irregularities in the counting process, including improper supervision by election officials, chaotic counting arrangements, discrepancies in ballot numbers, and wrongful rejection of valid ballot papers in violation of Rules 104, 105 and 106 of the U.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1994.⁴ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’] The Appellant contended that these violations materially affected the election result, and therefore sought for recounting of votes and declaration of the opponent’s election as invalid, with a prayer to declare the petitioner duly elected after recount.

3.2. Summons were issued and served on the Respondent No. 3, and Respondent No. 3 (Smt. Manoj Devi) filed a statement contesting the petition by filing the reply/written statement on 22.07.2022, after which issues were framed based on the pleadings. Despite several opportunities, the Respondent No. 3 failed to produce evidence or appear regularly, leading the Authority to hear the Appellants arguments ex parte and later, the opposite party filed a new vakalatnama and sought another date, which was considered in view of principles of natural justice.

II. THE ORDER OF THE SDO:

4. After examination of the evidence tendered by both the parties and the material available on record, the SDO ordered for Re-counting of the votes vide order dated 05.11.2022. The reasons assigned by the SDO are as follows:

4.1. During the proceedings, the Appellant produced evidence through affidavits and witnesses, which were cross-examined. On examining the election records, particularly Election Form 45 (Part-1) and Election Form 46 (Part-2), the court found discrepancies in the vote counts at certain polling booths, including differences in the nu