The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no prohibition in the Act or under the Rules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal to direct recounting of votes, and the Tribunal has the authority to order recounting based on the evidence presented.

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.7.2001 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.1/ collector whereby it was directed recounting of the votes.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 contested the election of Janapad Panchayat Constituency No.8 Korkoti Tahsil Keshkal (Bastar) which was held on 1.2.2000. At the time of counting respondent No.4 raised objection that certain arithmetical errors were committed by the Presiding Officer in filling up chart of booth No. 8 Thereafter, the Returning Officer sent the entire papers to the Collector for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Subsequently respondent No.4 filed election petitioner before respondent No.1/Collector, Bastar. After hearing the parties, the collector passed the order dated 21.11.2000. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.1 declared the result op.22.2.2001 and issued the certificate to the petitioner as an elected candidate. Respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the counting process filed an election petition under the provisions of Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam before respondent No.1/Collector on the ground that at the time of counting respondent No.2 Presiding Officer committed mistake in filling up the chart of booth No.8 and inspite of the objection the Returning Officer did not correct the said mistake and prayed for recounting of booth No.8 The Tribunal issued the notice. The petitioner submitted reply thereto and denied the allegations of respondent No.4. The petitioner submitted before the Tribunal that no mistake has been committed by the Presiding Officer as such no recounting is necessary. Respondent No.2 - the Presiding Officer also filed his reply and submitted that at the time of counting, no mistake has been committed by him and also stated that at the time of counting neither respondent No.4 nor his representatives raised and objection. Under these circumstances, no question arises for recounting the votes. The learned Tribunal respondent No.1 after hearing parties allowed the petition holding that as per facts and circumstances and material available on record that in form No.8 part-l figures were wrongly shown in the counting slip and directed respondent No.3 to recount the votes of polling No. 46, vide order dated 17.7.2001 Being aggrieved by this order petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in which it has been stated that he made an objection to respondent No.3/Returning Officer about certain mistakes committed by respondent No.2-Presiding Officer in counting the votes and respondent No.3 sent the matter for consideration to respondent No.1 (Collector). It is also submitted that at the same time, he also filed an election petition, which was ultimately rejected by order dated 21.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that no result was declared officially, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and respondent No.3 declared the result in favour of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was declared elected. It is further submitted that after declaration of the results respondent No.4 again filed election petition before the competent authority-respondent No.1 (Annexure P-3) in which after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties and having gone through the entire record, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 17.7.2001 (Annexure P-6) directing recounting. Respondent No.1 found that no application was filed by respondent No.4 though an opportunity of raising objection by filing application was available to him and further no application for recounting the votes has been filed on that date i.e. 1.2.2000 when the counting of votes has been completed. The learned Collector herein respondent No.1 while drawing above findings, prima facie found some arithmetical errors from the facts floating on the surface