Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Singh and Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 31.7.2017 whereby the Prescribed Authority, S.D.M. has directed recounting of the ballots.

3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that three tier elections for the post of Zila Panchayat, Kshetra Panchayat and Gram Panchayat were notified by the State Election Commission in 2015. The elections were held and the petitioner was declared elected. Thereafter an election petition was filed by the respondent No. 3- Smt. Premlata challenging the election result alleging that there were several irregularities in the electoral roll and that even dead persons as well as persons who had left the village and had gone away and were residing in other villages were shown to have voted. The Election Tribunal heard the matter and thereafter by the impugned order dated 31.7.2017 has ordered recounting.

4. The principal contention of the petitioner is that after the elections had been notified and result were declared it was not open for the respondent No. 3 to raise any such objections with regard to the validity of the electoral roll if such objection had not been taken at the time of preparation of the electoral roll. Copy of the election petition has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, in which it is stated that the strength of registered voters in the village Barahpur is 5553. The elections were held on 5.12.2015, 8 booths, namely, Booth Nos 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 were prepared for voting. 3473 votes were cast out of which 613 were declared invalid. It was alleged that the persons residing in other villages were also included in the voter list for the village Barahpur and many persons residing in this village were shown to be voters in other villages and names of dead persons were also included in the electoral roll. On behalf of the petitioner written statement was filed denying the allegations of the election petition. Statements of Smt. Premlata, Kripa Shanker, Smt. Archana and Sri Arvind were also recorded.

5. Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 3 never raised any objection against the electoral roll and therefore it is not open for her now to question the same after the election had already been held and result declared. He also submitted that though there is a reference to the application dated 23.2.2017, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition but this application for inspection of ballet papers and other documents, was not supported by any affidavit. On this application election papers were summoned by the S.D.M. Saidpur District Ghazipur by order dated 6.3.2017. This order of 6.3.2017 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 15806 of 2017 (Smt. Archana v. State Election Commission), which was disposed of by the High Court by order dated 19.4.2017 with the observation that since the opening of the seal of the election papers pursuant to the order of the S.D.O. dated 6.3.2017 had already been undertaken and the petitioner had not raised any objection at that stage prior to 3.4.2017 and the election petitioner has completed his evidence, therefore, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner therein would file his objections and complete his evidence latest by 27.4.2017, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 6.3.2017 and observed that in case the petitioner failed to file his evidence it would be open for the Election Tribunal to proceed with the matter.

6. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel submitted that the affidavit was filed by the petitioner in support of the application dated 23.2.2017 for summoning