Recount of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course or right. Recount can only be granted where proper foundation of material facts has been laid in the pleadings of the parties duly supported by trustworthy evidence, which would satisfy the Court that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, the inspection of ballot is necessary.

ASHOK BHAN,J.:-

1. Can a recount of the votes in an election of a Gram Panchayat held under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act, 1994) read with the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Rules, 1994) and the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act, 1994) and the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as to the Punjab Rules, 1994) be granted only on the asking of the election petitioner without there being adequate averments in the pleadings and in the absence of any contemporaneous evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the petition, is the important question of law which calls for determination in this writ petition.

2. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5690, 6541, 7270, 7665, 9871, 10058, 10610 and 12267, all of 1995, under the Haryana Act, 1994, and Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5862, 6234 and 6532, all of 1995, under the Punjab Act, 1994.

3. The provisions under the Haryana Act, 1994 and the Punjab Act, 1994 being slightly different, these two sets of petitions shall be disposed of under two headings i.e. the Haryana cases and the Punjab cases. Questions of law being the same, all these petitions are taken up together for disposal.HARYANA CASES :

4. Facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 9671 of 1995. Shortly stated, the same are; Election of Gram Panchayat of village Staundi, Tehsil and District Karnal, was held on 15-12-1994 and the writ petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner), claiming to be a voter in the Gram Panchayat and a supporter and an agent of respondent No. 11, one of the rival candidates, filed an election petition under S. 176 of the Haryana Act, 1994, in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Karnal. Which was later on assigned to the Court of the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Karnal. Election was challenged mainly on the grounds of irregularities and illegalities. It was also alleged that some ballot papers were printed on both the sides and the process issued by the Government / Election Department was illegal. Allegations regarding lapses in counting were also incorporated although the same were lacking in particulars.

5. Writ petitioner in his written statement controverted all the averments made in the election petition. Respondent No. ll also filed his written statement, broadly supporting the stand taken by the election petitioner. Respondent No. 11 also appeared as one of the witnesses in support of the election petition.

6. In support of the pleadings, parties were permitted to lead their evidence. Election petitioner produced P.W.1 Sat Pal, P.W. 2 O. P. Mittal, P.W. 3 Mani Ram and P. W. 4 Ram Pal, besides himself appearing as P.W. 5. Writ petitioner also adduced his oral evidence. He himself appeared as D.W.1, Rangi Ram appeared as D.W. 2 and Ishwar Singh as D.W. 3. Respondent No. 11 appeared as a defence witness and supported the contentions of the election petitioner in the election petition.

7. On 13-6-1995, election petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Karnal, making a prayer for recount of the votes. Copy of this application has been annexed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. In para 5 of this application, it was pleaded

" although voluminous evidence has been recorded by this Court, yet it is of no legal value and consequence, inasmuch as the petitioner is not interested in pressing any other ground mentioned in his election petition or otherwise which emerges from the evidence produced by the parties and wishes to submit before this Hon ble Court that his election petition be decided solely after ordering and having a recount of the votes polled at the time of election irrespective of the illegalities and improprieties committed by the election."

8. Writ petitioner filed reply to this application, copy of which has bee