JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the judgment and order dated 08.11.2022 passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh in the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 12-C(6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') holding the revision is not maintainable and the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Prescribed Authority/ Sub Divisional Officer, Patti, District Pratapgarh in Election Petition filed under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 filed by respondent no. 6 by which a direction was issued for re-counting of the votes and with a further prayer to issue an ad-interim mandamus staying the operation and implementation of the judgment/order dated 15.10.2022 passed by respondent no. 3.

2. Notices to the respondent nos. 7 to 11 are hereby dispensed with as they had neither filed the election petition nor raised any objection against the declaration of result of the election in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no. 6, who has filed the election petition is represented by her counsel.

3. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is decided at the admission stage.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the polling was held on 19.04.2021 for election on the post of Pradhan in village Ashapur Athgawan, Block Baba Belkharnath Dham, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh and total 922 votes were casted amongst the seven persons, who contested the election for the post of Pradhan including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. All the parties had appointed their Counting Agent, who were present at the time of counting of the votes.

5. The counting of the votes was held on 03.05.2021 in the presence of aforesaid duly authorized Counting Agents of respective contestants. Out of total votes, 216 votes were found to be casted in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 each, under the surveillance of CCTV camera on single table. When the equal votes were found casted in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, then the duly authorized Counting Agent of respondent no. 6 i.e. husband of respondent no. 6 namely Mr. Sushil Kumar made an oral request for re-counting of the votes before the respondent nos. 4 & 5 which was accepted and twice the votes were counted and both the time, the result was found to be the same.

6. In the event of equal votes, casted in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, the Returning Officer while following the procedure as provided under Rule 108 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1994 declared the result by adopting the procedure of lot and in the lot, the name of the petitioner had come so one additional vote was added in favour of the petitioner and the results were declared.

7. The petitioner after declaration of the result and issuance of certificate has taken the oath for the post of pradhan. After about two months of the declaration of the result, the election petition was filed by the respondent no. 6 on 01.07.2021 with a solitary prayer of recounting of votes.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 12 C(1) of the Act, 1947 which provides for application of questioning the elections also mentions the grounds for challenging the election whereas in the present case, the respondent no. 6 has not challenged the election on none of the grounds provided under Section 12-C of the Act, 1947 but made a prayer only for recounting of the votes, which could be an ad-interim prayer in the election petition and once the respondent no. 6 has not challenged the election, the election petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Section 12 C(1) provides for questioning the elections which has not been questioned in the election petition preferred by the respondent no. 6.

9. It is further submitted that in the