IMPORTANT POINT
Recounting of votes requires a prima facie case supported by cogent evidence; mere differences in vote counts do not justify recounting.

ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case pertaining to the present case.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction/writ/order setting-aside the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Election Tribunal presided by the Respondent No. 3 in Case No. 48/B-121/2019-20 and further, be pleased to set-aside all the subsequent proceedings thereto.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.”

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and sustainability of the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 3/Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Rajnandgaon in an election petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1993).

3. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner and the Respondents No. 5 to 10 contested the election of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Torankatta, Tehsil and District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Polling of election of Sarpanch, Village Torankatta was held on 28.01.2020. After completion of polling, votes casted were counted on the same day, after polling hours, which continued till late night. After completion of counting of votes, petitioner was declared elected. The Respondent No. 5 filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 pleading therein that, at the time of counting of votes at Booth No. 205 & 206 at Village Manki (dependent village of Village Panchayat Torankatta) there was electricity failure twice. There was no proper light at the time of counting of votes. Votes were not properly shown to the election agent present in the counting centre. The election agent of the Respondent No. 5 (election petitioner) submitted written objection, however, it was rejected mentioning that they can file an application to the appellate authority and get the votes recounted there.

4. Election petition was replied by the petitioner and disputed the grounds pleaded therein. The Election Tribunal vide its order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure P/3) directed for recounting of votes and fixed the date for recounting on 18.03.2021. The order of the Election Tribunal was put to challenge in writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1919/2021 which was allowed observing that under Rule 11 and 12 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Election Petition (Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1995) was not followed. Order of recount was set-aside and the case was remitted back to the Election Tribunal to decide afresh after following the mandate of Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 1995. After receiving the case back in remand, the Election Tribunal has passed impugned order, allowed the election petition and further directed for recount of votes. The date fixed for recounting of votes was 28.04.2022. This order of the Election Tribunal-cum-prescribed authority is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to point out that the writ petition was filed on 13.04.2022 and on 19.04.2022, this Court passed an interim order staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 till the next date of hearing.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petitioner failed to make out the case for recounting of the votes. There are some pleadings in the election petition that, twice there was electricity failure, however, it is not proved by placing admissible and cogent piece of evidence. She further contended that merely difference of one vote between two candidates would not be a ground for directing recounting of votes. The ground p