ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer/ Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur in Election Petition No. 7687 of 2021, [Saroja Devi v. Sarita Yadav and others], whereby an order directing for recounting of votes has been passed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that elections of Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh were held in the year 2021, the petitioner was one of the candidates for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kolahi, Development Block – Chhanbe, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur, [For Short, ‘Gram Panchayat’]. The Gram Panchayat was reserved for ‘OBC Category Candidate’. The petitioner, being eligible, contested the aforesaid election, having been allotted ‘Car’ as election symbol. The polling was conducted on 26.04.2021 and counting took place on 02.05.2021. Petitioner secured 471 votes and was declared elected as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat. The respondent, [‘Respondent’ is being used to denote – ‘opposite party’ in present writ petition] no. 1, namely, Saroja Devi secured 448 votes and thus the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 23 votes.

3. Challenging the aforesaid election on several grounds, stating that election was not conducted in free and fair manner, respondent no.1 -the defeated candidate filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, [Act, 1947] inter alia on the following grounds:

3.1 Valid votes cast in favour of Saroja Devi – respondent no. 1 herein, (election petitioner), were declared invalid;

3.2 Valid votes cast in favour of respondent no. 1 – Saroja Devi were mixed in bundles of petitioner Sarita Yadav (opposite party, [‘Opposite party’ is being used to denote – ‘opposite party’ in election petition filed before the Prescribed Authority] no. 1 in election petition) and respondent no. 7 -Neelam (opposite party no. 2 in election petition);

3.3 Number of votes, which were declared invalid, were mixed in the bundle of petitioner and were counted in her favour;

3.4 Number of votes cast in favour of the petitioner which were declared invalid were counted as valid votes in her favour.

4. The aforesaid fact regarding illegalities as done in counting was pointed out by husband of respondent no. 1 – Saroja Devi, who was present as her agent, raising objections in this regard before Counting Supervisor -Paryavekshak ¼i;Zos{kd½ and counting agents ¼x.kukdehZ½ but no attention was paid. It has also been alleged in the election petition that, after completion of counting, respondent no. 1 having election symbol ‘Kitab’¼fdrkc½, the bundle of valid papers of respondent no. 1 were more than that of the petitioner. It was informed by Paryavekshak and Gadnakarmi to the counting agent, present on behalf of respondent no. 1/ election petitioner that she had secured 448 votes whereas the petitioner herein (opposite party no. 1 in election petition) having symbol ‘Car’ had secured 413 votes, whereas opposite party no. 2 in election petition – Neelam Devi having election symbol ‘Imli’¼beyh½ had secured 60 votes, opposite party no. 3, namely, Anita Devi having symbol ‘Anaj Osata Kisan’ ¼vukt vkslkrk fdlku½ got 2 votes, opposite party no. 4 having symbol ‘Kanni’¼dUuh½ secured 1 vote and total 80 votes were rejected.

5. After giving the aforesaid information, Paryavekshak and Gadnakarmi asked husband of respondent no. 1, who was present as counting agent on her behalf, to call respondent no. 1, so that certificate in this respect could be given to her. It has also been alleged in paragraph-6 of the election petition that Paryavekshak and Gadnakarmi had made a chart accordingly. Receiving the aforesaid information, the counting agent left the counting hall in order to call his wife/respondent no. 1. He, standing at the door of counting centre Kanya Inter College, asked his wife to come inside the centre.

6. In paragraph-7 of the election petition, it has been alleged that as soon as