The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid recounting process and the need for clear findings on the fate of doubtful votes in election disputes.

1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Diganta, Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Since the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 did not contest the proceeding before the Election Tribunal and no relief is claimed against them, with the consent of the contesting parties, this writ petition is being disposed off at the motion stage.

2. In this writ petition the judgment and order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-Panchayat Election Tribunal, Karimganj, declaring the respondent No.4 as the elected candidate for post of President of 43 No. Panighat Gaon Panchayat by reversing the poll results has been put to challenge.

3. In the last Panchayat Election held on 12.02.2013, the writ petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 had contested the polls for the post of President of the Panighat Gaon Panchayat falling under No.9 Sadarashi Lakshmibazar Zilla Parishad in the district of Karimganj. The polling took place on 12.02.2013 and the counting of votes was held on 14.02.2013 in the campus of Karimganj College, Karimganj. The total number of votes polled in the election was 4524. After completion of the counting, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest number of 1608 votes and his nearest rival i.e. the respondent No.4 had secured 1582 votes. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was declared as the elected candidates by defeating his nearest rival i.e. respondent No.4 by a margin of 26 votes.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid result, the respondent No.4 as election petitioner had challenged the election of the writ petitioner by filing Misc. (Election) Case No.57/2013 before the Panchayat Election Tribunal, Karimganj, inter-alia alleging that on the date of counting there were as many as 10 counting agents deputed by the election petitioner/respondent No.4 who had later informed him that it was the respondent No.4/election petitioner who had actually received 1608 number of votes and not the writ petitioner. On the basis of such allegation the respondent No.4 had sought recounting of the ballots.

5. The writ petitioner/returned candidate had contested the Election Petition by filing written statement. On conclusion of trial, the learned Election Tribunal had passed judgment and order dated 03.12.2014 directing recount of the ballots. The review application being Misc. (Review) No.01/2015 preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2014 was rejected by the order dated 06.06.2015 as a result of which the writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRP No.256/2015 which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by this court. Even the Special Leave Petition being SLP No.4688/2016 preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.02.2016.

6. With the dismissal of the SLP, the judgment and order dated 03.12.2014 had attained finality and therefore, the process of recounting of the ballots was undertaken by the Munsiff No.1, Karimganj as per the order of the Election Tribunal. Thereafter, a report dated 16.03.2016 was submitted by the learned Munsiff containing the findings pertaining to the recounting of 1266 ballots held on 15.03.2016 and 16.03.2016. The recounting of the remaining ballots could not be done since those ballot papers were not made available for counting.

7. Since the total number of votes polled in the election was 4524 and the report dated 16.03.2016 was only in respect of 1266 ballots, hence, by the order dated 21.03.2016 passed in Misc. (Election) Case No.57/2013, the learned Election Tribunal had