JUDGMENT :

The Bihar State Election Commission notified the election of Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward Member in 2016. The petitioner and respondent no.7 to 15 contested the election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Simri, Block-Simri Bakhtiyarpur Saharsa, which was held on 28.04.2016. Thereafter, the counting was done on 02.06.2016 in Uchch Vidyalay, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Saharsa. After counting, respondent no.7 was declared as returned candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Panchayat Raj Simri, Territorial Constituency No.20, Bakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa, as she had got 994 valid votes whereas the petitioner had got 993 valid votes.

2. Being aggrieved by the result of election, the petitioner preferred Election Petition No.21 of 2016 in the court of Munsif-cum-Election Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Saharsa seeking declaration of the returned candidate as winner for the post of Mukhiya announced on 03.06.2016 as illegal and void, as also for declaring that the respondent no.7 had won the election as a result of corrupt practice of the official respondents and for declaring that process of recounting was wrong and illegal and not binding upon the petitioner.

3. After appreciating the evidences led on behalf of the parties in Election Petition No.21 of 2016, the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 dismissed the election petition on contest.

4. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 is under challenge in the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The contention of the petitioner in the election petition was that after counting of votes on 02.06.2016, she had got 1005 valid votes and respondent no.7 had got 993 valid votes in the initial counting. Thereafter, all the agents were asked to leave the hall where the counting process was going on. Subsequently, she received information from media that recounting was done by the returning officer without any application having been given by any contestant and recounting was done by adopting corrupt practice whereafter respondent no.7 was declared as winner by a margin of one vote. She had further stated that irregularity in counting was exposed in daily newspaper on 07.06.2016. The petitioner pleaded that respondent no.7 is not the lawful winner and she was declared elected with connivance of the official respondents by adopting corrupt practice.

6. Respondent No.7 contested the election petition. Her stand before the Tribunal was that the election petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has got no cause of action. The election petition is frivolous and is fit to be dismissed. The petition is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. The only ground on the basis of which the petitioner had sought indulgence is irregularity in counting of votes, but she has neither brought any substantive evidence in support of the same nor she has sought for recounting of votes. In absence of specific prayer, the Tribunal cannot order for recounting and, thus, the election petition is fit to be dismissed. The respondent no.7 had not adopted any corrupt practice at any stage of election and had duly been declared elected on the basis of valid votes. The respondent no.7 further pleaded that petitioner had never secured 1005 votes rather she had secured only 993 valid votes whereas respondent no.7 secured total number of 994 votes and was duly declared elected after recounting made on the request of husband and election agent of the petitioner namely, Syed Helal Ashraf and the election result was declared only when he gave a written undertaking that he has got no objection with the recounting. It was further urged that it is utterly wrong and false on the part of the petitioner to say that recounting was done suo motu without any written request or demand by any of the candidates and that the husband of respondent no.7 had also filed petition for recounti