K.Kannan, J.

1. The appeal is against the order of the Election Tribunal declaring the 1st respondent herein as lawfully elected in the election for the post of Member Panchayat in village Pandori Beet, Tehsil Garshankar.

2. In the Panchayat election held on 26.05.2008, the petitioner and the respondents Nos.1 to 3 before the Election Tribunal were in fray contesting for two seats reserved for Women General Candidates. The results were announced declaring the appellant here-Bhajno (1st respondent before the Election Tribunal) as duly elected. The tally of votes as declared was that Bhajno had polled 85 votes, while the person challenging the election, Bimla Devi had polled 84 votes. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had polled lesser number of votes and they are not necessary for enumeration.

3. The election petition had been filed by Bimla Devi essentially on the ground that the Election Officer had at all times been saying that Bimla Devi had polled 94 votes but ultimately when the results were announced, the tally was shown as 84 votes. The contention was that the total number of invalid votes as declared were 19 but the petitioner has stated in the election petition that 21 votes had been rejected as invalid by the Presiding Officer in connivance with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 suggesting as it were, that the votes cast in her favour had been wrongly treated as invalid votes. Apart from these two contentions, some general allegations had also been made that the Presiding Officer had been at the influence of the opposite parties No. I and 2 and it was also stated that a person by name Amri.t Pal had been canvassing votes even inside the polling place and he was fully drunk and he was supporting the "cause of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Bhajno had filed her objection denying the contentions raised by Bimla Devi and the parties went to trial on the basis of the rival contentions where it was required to be found whether the allegation of malpractice as contended by the petitioner has been established. It was also to see whether votes, which were validly cast had been wrongly assigned as invalid votes and whether the petitioner, who was reported to have polled 94 votes was wrongly declared as polled only 84 votes.

5. At the trial, an application had been moved by the petitioner for recount of all the votes. This petition had been allowed subsequent to the oral evidence that had been tendered by the parties. The interim order was challenged in revision by Bhajno before this Honble High Court by means of a revision in C.R. No. 1965 of 2009. This Honble Court passed an interim order on 16.04.2009 appointing Sh. G.K. Khanna, Advocate to be present at the time when the recounting was to be done. The interim order was passed on securing consent of both parties. At the recounting, which was done on 17.04.2009, the Commissioner Sh. G.K. Khanna was present. It was reported that Bhajno, who was the revision petitioner, was not present. However, she knew the date when the recounting was to be done and she had opted not to be present. At the recounting, in view of the contention raised by Bimla Devi that the Presiding Officer had wrongly rejected several polled votes and boosted the tally of valid votes, the votes which had been bundled as invalid were first seen. The Commissioner found that 19 votes, which had been declared as invalid were correctly so declared. Then referring to the votes, which the petitioner herself had polled because her complaint was that her actual tally was 94 when the Presiding Officer had counted them as only 84, on recount of the number of votes, which had been bundled as having been cast in her favour, it was seen that she had polled only 84 votes. The votes cast in favour of every other candidate were also required to be seen since it could have been possible that votes cast in favour of the petitioner had been wrongly counted as having been voted in the names of other candidates. The votes of every other cand