Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, J.
VIBHA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
SAROJ - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 28519 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/04/1996
Recount - Election Dispute - The court ordered a recount of votes based on a narrow margin of votes and the fact that the respondent was earlier declared elected, in line with the legal provision that a narrow margin can be considered for ordering a recount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha, and the respondent filed an election petition challenging the recount of votes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the narrow margin of votes, coupled with the fact that the respondent was earlier declared elected, justified the order of recount, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the narrow margin of votes and the earlier declaration of the respondent as elected justified the order of recount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provision that a narrow margin of votes, when coupled with other relevant facts, can justify the order of recount, as established in the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1980 SC 206.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ordered a recount of the votes.
( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 5-8-1996.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha and respondent No. 1 filed an election petition which is pending. By the impugned order, recount of the voles has been challenged in this petition.
( 3 ) A perusal of the impugned order dated 5-8-1996 shows that while the petitioner polled 475 votes, respondent No. 1 polled 472 votes. Thus there is a narrow margin of three votes.
( 4 ) NO doubt as hold by the Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 206, narrow margin of votes would not by itself justify recounting but the same decision also states that this is a fact which can be taken into consideration while deciding whether to order a recount. In the present case, not only is there a narrow margin of votes but this is also coupled with the fact that earlier the respondent no. 1 was declared elected. Hence both these facts together, in my opinion, justify the order of recount.
( 5 ) THUS there is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
