Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Jain, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.K. Awasthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Nandan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri D.B.Yadav, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1. Since, the remaining respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are proforma respondents, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without calling for a counter affidavit since no factual controversy is involved.

2. It transpires that the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan in the year 2005. The petitioner secured 538 votes and the contesting respondent No. 1 secured 535 votes. 57 votes were declared invalid and the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as the elected Pradhan under the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The contesting respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on various grounds. During its pendency, the contesting respondent moved an application dated 23.1.06 before the prescribed authority for the recounting of the votes and on this application, an order dated