An order for recounting of ballot papers is not to be passed for the mere asking.

The petitioner, elected as the Sarpanch of Erlapudi Gram Panchayat of Khammam District, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, in I.A. No.840 of 2013 in the Election O.P. No.16 of 2013 dated 25.02.2014, whereby recounting of votes was directed; and respondents 1, 4 to 6 were called upon to produce the election material before it for recounting in open Court on 15.03.2014 at 11.00 A.M.

Facts, to the extent necessary, are that elections to the post of Sarpanch of Erlapudi Gram Panchayat were held on 27.07.2013. In the first counting of votes, the petitioner got six votes more than the 6th respondent, with 82 votes treated as invalid. In the second round of counting both the petitioner and the 6th respondent were tied with an equal number of votes, and the invalid votes were held to have increased to 87 and, on a further recount, the petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch holding that he had secured two more votes than the 6th respondent. However the total number of invalid votes, in the third round of counting, increased to 99. Aggrieved thereby the 6th respondent filed Election O.P. No.16 of 2013 on the file of the Election Tribunal (Principal Junior Civil Judge) at Khammam on 19.08.2013 seeking an order for recounting of votes; to declare the petitioner’s election as Sarpanch as null and void; and he be declared as the successful candidate in the election. The 6th respondent filed I.A. No.840 of 2013 in E.O.P.No.16 of 2013, on the same day i.e., 19.08.2013, seeking an interim order for recounting of votes. Counter-affidavits were filed thereto by the petitioner, the Returning Officer, and the Deputy District Election Authority (Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer). The Election Tribunal, by its order dated 25.02.2014, allowed the said I.A and directed recounting of votes. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would contend that the 6th respondent did not raise any plea, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.840 of 2013, regarding violation of any rules; mere absence of prejudice is no ground for grant of interim relief; the Election Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order; the main prayer in the Election O.P and the prayer in the I.A are the same; the relief sought for in the I.A. could not, therefore, have been granted; in allowing the I.A, the Tribunal has virtually allowed a part of the Election O.P. at the threshold, even before commencement of trial and evidence being adduced before it; it is only after a full-fledged trial, and after going through the evidence adduced by the parties, can the Tribunal arrive at a proper conclusion; allegations in the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A, should not have been accepted by the Tribunal as gospel truth; an order for recounting of votes could not have been passed merely on the basis of an affidavit; the Tribunal erred in accepting the 6th respondent’s claim without even a prima facie being made out; and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Singh (2006 (5) ALD 12), and of this Court in Kagitha Bhanu v. Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Gudivada, Krishna District (2011(3)ALD 509) were not even referred to. Learned Senior Counsel would also rely on Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao ((2010) 1 SCC 466); R Pandiammal v. S. Muthulakshmi (2013(2) MadLJ 353:(2012) Law Suit (Madras) 1898);and Kommuri Pratap Reddy. v. Ponnala Lakshmaiah ((2014) 2 ALD 692).

On the other hand Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, would submit that Rules 7 and 12(d)(iii) and (iv) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called the “