The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the secrecy of the ballot and the need for adequate evidence to justify a recount.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Krishna Murari for petitioner and Sri R. B. Singhal as well as learned standing counsel for respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter was finally heard on 31-10-2002 and judgment was reserved. Interim order dated 9-9-2002 was directed to continue till the date of delivery of judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the election for Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jahangirabad, Tehsil Anoop Shahar, district Bulandshahr, was held on 23-11-2000 along with election of members of Parishad. Petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 were the contesting candidates. Counting took place on 25-11-2000, after which petitioner Sabir was declared elected, having secured highest number of votes 7418 while respondent No. 2 Amrish secured 7387 votes, respondent No. 3 Surajbhan secured 6482 votes; respondent No. 4 Himachal secured 3961 votes and respondent No. 5 secured 347 votes. Apart from above 1246 ballot papers were declared invalid during the process of counting on the ground that these were marked by a round seal (Triveni seal) whereas the authorised seal issued by poll authorities was the seal bearing arrow mark (Swastik seal ).

( 3 ) AMRISH, respondent No. 2, filed an election petition under Sections 19/20 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, challenging petitioners election. In paragraphs 10 to 15 of writ petition, it was stated that all 1246 votes were invalidated on the ground that they were marked with round seal. These votes were, in fact, cast in favour of petitioner. They were improperly and wrongly invalidated and in case they were counted , petitioner would have been declared elected. In substance, the ground taken in the election petition was that valid votes in favour of petitioner, were invalidated on account of the fact that they were marked with round seal. In the written statement, petitioner denied this fact and stated that no objection was taken either oral or in writing at the time of counting. The election authorities had issued only swastik seal, which was authorised and valid for the purpose of election. No other seal was made available by Presiding Officer to the voters. In case wrong seal was used, election petitioner should have raised objection at the time of counting. The District Election Officer/returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jahangira-bad, Tehsil Anoop Shahar, district Buland-shahr were also impleaded as respondents 6 and 7. They filed their joint written statement. In para 7 of this written statement, the contents of Para 11 of election petition were denied. It was stated that the polling authorities were not issued any round seal and that the votes were rightly invalidated.

( 4 ) ISSUE Nos. 2 and 3, relating to jurisdiction of Court to hear the petition and payment of security amount, were decided in favour of election-petitioner on 22-4-2002. Election petitioner Amrish examined himself as PW 1. He also examined Sanjai Kumar Agarwal, Kuldeep Verma and Ashwani, as PWs. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer or any other officers/employee, connected with the election, was neither summoned nor examined.

( 5 ) BY impugned order dated 2-9-2002, the Additional District Judge (Court No. 4), Bulandshahr decided issue No. 4, with regard to the impleadment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the election petition and issue No. 1, with regard to cancellation of election on the ground taken in the election petition, in favour of petitioner and while setting aside the order and declaring petitioner Sabir elected on 25-11-2000 on the basis of election held on 23-11-2000, directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to re-examine 1246 votes and in case they found that there was no other legal ground other than declaring the votes, stamped by wrong seal invalid, the said votes may be accepted in favour of the candidates in whose favour they we