Courts may order ballot recounting in close-margin election disputes with party consent, estopping later objections; ballot validity determined by inspecting marks, potentially reversing results per recount tally.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge:

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A. That the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla may be quashed and set aside and the order dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohru, may be upheld.

B. That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record of the case and they may be burdened with the cost of the petition.”

2. The petitioner has assailed the order Annexure P/1, dated 21.03.2022, in terms whereof, the Election Petition filed by her against the election of the returned candidate, i.e., respondent No. 6, as Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Sari, Development Block Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. was rejected as well as order Annexure P/2, dated 06.05.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection of the Election Petition was also dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 contested election for the office of Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Sari, Development Block Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. held on 21.01.2021. In terms of the result declared thereof on the same date, respondent No. 6 was declared as an elected candidate by one vote. The petitioner was stated to have secured 246 votes, whereas, respondent No. 6 secured 247 votes. The petitioner filed an Election Petition, inter alia, on the ground that 13 votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner were wrongly declared as invalid votes, which acted to the prejudice of the petitioner and further 7 votes which were bound to be declared as invalid, were not done so.

4. To cut the controversy short, as already observed by me hereinabove, feeling aggrieved by the declaration of respondent No. 6 as an elected candidate, the petitioner filed the Election Petition, which was dismissed and so was the fate of the appeal.

5. When this case was heard on 30.05.2025, in the light of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, this Court passed the following order:-

“Heard for some time. Taking into consideration the controversy involved in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the voles casted in the election are directed to be produced by the Office of the learned Advocate General, before the Court, so that re-counting thereof can be ordered under the supervision of the Court, which of course will be without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties.

As there is no objection to the said observation made by the Court, accordingly, the case is ordered to be listed on 20.06.2025, on which date the votes casted in d election in issue shall be produced before the Court in sealed covered.
Original record of the Election petition be a produced by the Office of learned Advocate General on next date of hearing.”

6. Thereafter, on 28.07.2025, the following order was passed:-

“….Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the requisite ballots have been produced before the Court, let some responsible officer of the Registry count the same and furnish the result in a sealed cover to the Court. He further submits that it would in the interest of justice, in case, need