Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner-Darshan Singh has challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 18th January, 2000. Annexure P-3 to the petition, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Bathinda, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) ordering recount of the votes.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has impugned the said order mainly on the following grounds:-

a) the order of recount is not based on substantial pleading and material evidence;

b) the grounds pleaded by the election-petitioner before the Tribunal are so inter-mingled with other grounds that order of recount could not be passed independent of the decision of other grounds; and

c) the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of maintainability of the petition before passing the impugned order.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the impugned order is a valid order, in consonance with the settled principles of law and has been passed within four corners of the statutory provisions and with definite material in support thereof on the record.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, reference to the necessary facts would be appropriate.

5. Election to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Bangi Rughu was held on 21st June, 1998. Darshan Singh, Harinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh contested the said election. Darshan Singh was declared elected in the said election by defeating respondents No. 2 and 3. Darshan Singh was declared elected by margin of one vote over Harinder Singh. Harinder Singh filed an election petition before the Tribunal challenging the election of Darshan Singh. The election petition was filed with a prayer that election petition be accepted and the election of Darshan Singh be set aside and the petitioner be declared as elected Sarpanch in the said election. Various grounds of corrupt practices as well for re-count of votes were taken in the said petition. It was stated that Darshan Singh had brought some fictitious persons to vote in his favour and the Polling Officer was interested in Darshan Singh. They had drink and meals together at night. Whenever an objection was raised to any irregularity in process of election the same was ought rightly rejected by the Presiding Officer. Great emphasis was placed on the irregularities committed in counting of votes. At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to certain relevant paragraphs of the election petition.

"6. That respondent No. 3 was highly interested in respondent No. 1 as he had old relations with respondent No. 1 and Polling Officers and Presiding Officer had reached village in the evening of 20/6/1998 and had stayed in the school. But at night all the respondents No. 3 to 7 had taken meals and drinks at the residence of respondent No. 1 and that is why, respondents No. 3 to 7 had been ought rightly helping respondent No. 1. Whenever any objection had been raised by the petitioner, the same had been turned down by respondent No. 3 without assigning any cogent reasons.

7. That after the polling was completed, the respondent No. 3 had directed all candidates and agents of the candidates for the post of Panch to go out of the polling station and only Darshan Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh s/o Jagdev Singh who was agent of petitioner were allowed to remain inside the room where votes were to be counted. Respondent No. 3 directed Darshan Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh to sit on one side of the room and at the time of counting of the votes, respondents No. 3 to 7 did not allow Sarabjit Singh or Paramjit Singh to scrutinise the votes in order to ascertain marks on the ballot papers. The respondent No. 3 had also not shown the rejected votes/ballot papers to the agents. Respondents No. 3 to 7 had illegally rejected 39 votes without allowing agent of the petitioner to scrutinise the marks on those votes. So votes of the p