D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) IN the last elections for the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Khagiya, Block Development Block Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Gaon Sabha), the petitioner was elected as Pradhan defeating his only rival, Kamta Prasad, whose election was challenged on 17-2-1989 by means of an election petition under Section 12c of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, for brevity, (hereinafter to be referred to as the P. R. Act,) numbered as Election Petition No. 35 of 1989, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Robertsganj (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), seeking relief for declaration of his election as illegal after recount of ballot papers on taking evidence and declaring him (the election petitioner as elected pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The Tribunal after filing of the written statement, it appears, framed issues, but, without taking any evidence, relying on the affidavit of the election petitioner filed along with the application for recount, which contained statement to the effect that during counting his valid votes were wrongly rejected and many invalid votes of the respondent in the election petition were wrongly accepted the prayer and passed the following order on 17-5-1989:- in pursuance of this order, the Tehsildar proceeded for counting the ballot papers and completed the same. On 1-6-1989, the Tribunal, consequent upon the recounting made by the Tehsildar and the result declared by him, passed a formal order saying that Sri Kamta Prasad is declared as pradhan and accordingly the election petition was disposed of.

( 2 ) THIS order was challenged by way of revision before the District Judge sub-s. (6) of Section 12c of the P. R. Act by the present petitioner which was decided on 19-2-1990 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, maintaining the order of the Tribunal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has given challenge to the aforesaid three orders seeking relief in main, for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the same.

( 4 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties were exchanged and the matter relating to the vacation of the interim order was posted for consideration before the Court, but at the request of the counsel for both the sides, the petition was heard on merits for being decided finally.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Singh, and learned counsel for the respondent. Sri V. Singh, were heard ad longum. The Standing Counsel apparently having no interest in the matter, did not address the Court.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made the following two fold submissions:- (I) that the recounting was illegally done as there was no material before the Tribunal except the election petition, which even did not contain the summary of circumstances to justify the questioning of the election of the petitioner, on the ground which was vague and general that there has been wrong rejection of valid votes of the election petitioner and wrong reception of invalid votes in favour of the respondent in the election petition, and the affidavit filed in the election petition along with the application for recount also contained vague and general averments that valid votes of the election petitioner were wrongly rejected and invalid votes of the respondents were wrongly recepted by the Returning Officer who even refused the prayer of recount of ballot papers:-- (ii) that under Section 12c of the P. R. Act improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote, which is void, is not an independent ground for giving challenge to the election of successful candidate, like the one as provided under Section 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as r. P. Act), and the person giving challenge to the election of the returned candidate can succeed only on evidence that the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document