1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by returned candidate-petitioner Smt. Sushila of the office of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Sorkha Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar against the rejection of her application filed under Order-7 Rule-11 of Civil Procedure Code by the Election Tribunal vide its order dated 13.9.2005.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-returned candidate and the respondent No.4 both were the candidates in the election of Sarpanch pf Panchayat Samiti Sorkha Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District, Alwar, held on .31.1.2005 and after fourth recounting the petitioner was declared elected on 31.1.2005. Against the said election, respondent No.4 who lost the election, filed the Election Petition in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar (herein after referred to as 'the Election Tribunal'), which was registered as Election Petition No. 22/2005. The respondent No.4 has prayed in the said Election Petition that the election of the respondent No.4 of the Election petition, Smt. Sushila Chaudhary of Sarpanch of Panchayat Samiti Sorkha Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar be declared null and void and further the election petitioner be declared elected to the said office and it has been further prayed that after calling the necessary record, recounting be ordered.

3. In the said election petition, the petitioner has mainly raised the ground that there was no need of third recounting whereby four valid votes have been declared invalid, which has resulted in equal number of votes i.e., 742-742. Although in earlier two counting and recounting, she got more votes than the returned candidate-petitioner. Even after third recounting, the S.D.M., was called, who was nothing to do with the election process but still Rule 51 of Lottery Draw was not followed and again recounting was held and she was declared defeated by rejecting four valid votes. The election-petitioner-respondent No.4 has further alleged caste bias against the S.D.M.

4. The petitioner-returned candidate filed reply to the election petition and has taken the ground that the averments of the election petition lack material facts /particulars with regard to counting/recounting. One more objection was taken that no written application was filed before the Returning Officer and simultaneously filed on application under Order-7 Rule-11 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that neither the cause of action nor the reasons for recounting have been disclosed nor objected the recounting, therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Election Tribunal after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the election petition relating to the election result dated 31.1.2005 and on this date the cause of action is said to have arisen to the election petitioner who is a defeated candidate. The Tribunal has further given the finding that grounds to the challenge have been enumerated in the election petition and not giving any separate para for mentioning the cause of action will not make any difference. As regards not filing written objection before the Returning Officer, the Tribunal was of the view that the last recounting was not on the application of the election petitioner, therefore, there was no need for filing any written objection before the Returning Officer. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : HINDI MATTER 358367

6. The submission of the counsel for petitioner-returned candidate is that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in rejecting the application under Order-7 Rule-11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The counsel for the petitioner-returned candidate further submits that the material facts/particulars for recounting are lacking and further no objection was submitted before the Returning Officer by the petitioner-respondent No.4. As regards application under Order-7 Rule-11 Civil Procedure Code, the submission of the c