The court emphasized the stringent requirements for ordering a recount of votes in election petitions, highlighting the need for a prima facie case, specific pleading of material facts, and avoiding roving inquiries.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner was one out of the two contestants to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Baragran, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu H.P. in the elections held on 1.1.2016, the other being respondent No. 4.

2. After polling was over, counting started in the Panchayat Ghar and on opening the ballot boxes, the votes polled by each of the candidate was separated and thereafter counted.

3. It is averred that on counting of the votes, the petitioner secured 471 votes, whereas respondent No.4 secured 465 votes. Respondent No.4 sought re-counting of votes and in the recounting so done, 8 votes of the petitioner was declared invalid and thereby she secured 463 votes, whereas the votes polled in favour of respondent No.4 remained the same i.e. 465. This time it was the petitioner, who objected to the re-counting and resultantly, another recount took place and after this recount, both the parties secured 465 votes each. It is averred that the Assistant Returning Officer without obtaining the consent and without going into the authenticity of the votes declared invalid, went for ‘draw of lots’ in which respondent No. 4 came to be elected.

4. Aggrieved by the election of respondent No.4, the petitioner firstly filed an election petition before the Authorised Officer, however, the same was dismissed and she thereafter assailed the decision by filing an appeal under Section 181 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act’) before the Deputy Commissioner, who too, vide order dated 15.12.2016 dismissed the same.

5. Aggrieved by the decision rendered by both the authorities below, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition claiming therein the following substantive relief:

(i) That order dated passed by both the authorities may be quashed and set aside and election petition filed by petitioner may be allowed by ordering recount of votes as well as for rechecking of invalid votes for knowing the intention of the voter, in the interest of law and justice.

6. The official respondents have contested the petition by filing a joint reply wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi etc. have been raised. On merits, it is averred that the entire process of election was conducted by the Assistant Returning Officer in a fair manner as provided by law. It is further averred that the counting and re-counting of the votes had been done in the presence and with the consent of the agents of both the parties and the decision of the Assistant Returning Officer to carry out the draw of lots was as per the mandate of Section 175 (b) of the Act and Chapter 15 of the Handbook of Assistant Returning Officer for which the written consent was neither necessary nor provided for in the aforesaid Act and guidelines.

7. Respondent No.4, who is the elected candidate, has filed a separate reply which in fact is virtually reiteration of the reply filed by the official respondents.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8. As would be evident from the prayer clause, the petitioner has primarily sought re-counting of votes and, therefore, the moot question is whether such relief can be granted on the mere asking of the petitioner. The position of law has now been crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a large number of decisions, some of which are cited below.

9. In Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govind and others AIR 1975 SC 2117, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“15. Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers :

(1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;

(2) That before inspection is allowed, the allocations