The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the conditions for ordering recounting in election disputes, as outlined in Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, and previous legal precedents.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner the returned candidate on the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bikrampur within Kuchaikote Block in the District of Gopalganj is aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2007 passed in Election Petition No. 18/2006 by the learned Munsif, Gopalganj, who has directed production of all ballot boxes of the said Gram Panchayat for the election held in. the year 2006 for the purpose of recounting. The order impugned is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that the said decision of recounting ordered by the learned Munsif is in the teeth of several pronouncements both of this High Court as well as of the Hon ble Supreme Court. His primary submission is that in absence of any application having been filed under the mandatory provision of Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) recounting cannot be ordered as a routine exercise. He further submits that the pleadings in the election petition seeking such declaration is in absence of material facts stating irregularities and it is more in the nature of roving and fishing enquiry without a prima facie case having been made out in the election petition. He relies on a recent decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Banwari Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, 2007 4 PLJR 169 and the case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, 2004 6 SCC 331 in support of his submissions.

4. Some basic facts are that the petitioner contested for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bikrampur in the District of Gopalganj, election was held on 15.5.2006, counting was done on 16.6.2006 and since the petitioner secured 1040 votes out of 2892 valid votes, she was declared as the returned candidate. A certificate in this regard was also handed over to her and she was administered oath to the post of Mukhiya on 24.6.2006. Respondent No. 7 got 1036 votes. She being aggrieved by the said declaration of result filed an Election Case No. 18/2006 in terms of Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Her primary contention in the election petition was that her 140 valid votes were not counted by the Returning Officer despite objections having been raised in this regard and the result declared. The election petition filed by respondent no. 7 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ application.

5. Petitioner filed her written statement and raised several objections to the maintainability of the election petition. Her stand is that the election petition does not contain any material facts, the allegations are bald and general in nature. No steps were taken by her in terms of the mandatory requirement of Rule 79 of the Rules, which could give her the basis for praying for recounting, which is a condition precedent as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the election petition contained in Annexure-1 in support of what have been urged by the petitioner in her written statement as well as the legal submissions made at the Bar in the present writ application. No doubt statement has been made in paragraph 5 that 140 valid votes of the respondent no. 7 had been kept out of counting by the official respondents with a motive but there is nothing in the election petition to show that any steps were taken either by her or her agent under Rule 79 of the Rules, which relates to recounting of votes. There is some averment that a kind of complaint was lodged before the District Magistrate-cum-District Returning Officer as well as the State Election Commissioner, but there is no assertion that any objection was filed before the Returning Officer in this regard.

7. The Court has perused the election petition and the submission of the petitioner in this regard does not seem to be misplaced. There is no categorical as