The necessity for a prima facie case to be established before ordering a recount of votes, and the requirement for adequate statement of material facts and contemporaneous evidence to support the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1, whereby the election petition filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed and a Committee has been constituted for recounting the votes.

1. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that in December 2018 the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their nominations for the post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Singpura, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar. The polling was held on 30.12.2018 and the petitioner was declared elected. In January 2019 the respondent No.5 filed an election petition (Annexure P-1) before respondent No.1 challenging the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Singpura. Vide impugned order dated 20.07.2022 respondent No.1 accepted the election petition filed by respondent No.5 and constituted a Committee for recounting the votes. Hence, the present revision petition.

2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the records were summoned on 28.07.2022 after hearing both the counsel for the parties. Before this Court arguments have been made by counsel representing the petitioner, respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 while respondent No.2 put in appearance in person. None of the respondents filed any counter- affidavits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.1 has allowed the election petition in a routine and cavalier manner and has not assigned any reasons for ordering a recount. According to learned counsel the impugned order is a mere reproduction of the statements of the parties recorded in evidence and there are no reasons forthcoming for ordering a recount which has been ordered mechanically. It is contended that the impugned order does not even record a prima facie case for ordering a recount. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions in the cases of Kirpal Singh vs. Preet Mohinder Singh [1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 248], Udey Chand vs. Surat Singh & Anr. [2009 (10) SCC 170], Harjinder Singh vs. Addl. Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal & Ors. [2015 (47) RCR (Civil) 749] and Gurnam Bindra Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 741].

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that after the counting the respondent No.5 was declared elected by 12 votes but immediately it was announced that 19 votes had been rejected and the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch by a margin of 13 votes.

5. According to counsel the 19 votes were rejected without assigning any reasons which caused grave prejudice to respondent No.5 and is also violative of Rule 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994. He also contended that once a recount has been ordered then the result of the recount has to be given effect to. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions in the cases of Darshan Singh vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-President Officer & Ors. [2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 271], T.A. Ahammed Kabeer vs. A.A. Azeez & Ors. [2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 250] and Chandeshwar Saw vs. Brij Bhushan Prasad & Ors. [2020 (12) SCC 70], Baldev Singh vs, Shinder Pal Singh & Anr. [2007 (1) SCC 341] and Sadhu Singh vs. Darshan Singh & Anr. [2006 (6) SCC 255].

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and respondent No.2 appearing in person. Vide the election petition (Annexure P-1) the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch was challenged by respondent No.5 on the following allegations :

'7. That at the time of counting, the petitioner and his agent were directed to sit 5-6 feet away from the counting table. After counting, the petitioner was declared elected by 12 votes. Then abruptly the polling party stated that 19 votes have been rejected and that Sadhu Singh is elected as Sarpanch by margin of 13 votes. The polling party without giving any reason improperly rejected 19 number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner in connivance with respondent no.3 s