The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and specific allegations supported by material facts before allowing inspection of ballot papers and granting a recount. The judgment also reaffirmed the settled legal position that defective electoral lists cannot be challenged in an election petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. List is revised. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 4. As per office report dated 25.10.2023, service upon respondent nos. 5 & 6 is sufficient, but no one has put in appearance on their behalf even in the revised call, as also learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is not present. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present.

2. On 16.05.2023 following order was passed by this Court:

“Heard Sri Shailendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K.Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.4.2023 by which recounting of votes has been ordered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared winning candidate in the election of Gram Panchayat, Amdariya therefore respondent no.4 filed an election petition with a prayer for recounting of votes which is covered under section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. In support thereof he relief upon paragraph nos. 8, 9 an 10 of the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2019 (144) RD 737). He further submits that winning of the petitioner by one vote is not a good ground for passing the impugned order for recounting.

Rebutting the said submission learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that impugned order for recounting has rightly been passed on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the election petition, which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice.

Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been accepted by the office of the learned chief standing counsel. Sri Diwakar Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. Let notice be issued to respondent nos 5 and 6 by registered post returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within two weeks.

The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List as fresh on 12.7.2023.

In the meantime recounting may be done as directed by the impugned order but result shall be kept in sealed cover with the District Magistrate concerned. The result of the recounting of votes shall not be declared till the next date of listing.”

3. On 26.10.2023 this Court passed the following order:

“List revised. None appears on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel is present.

By the order dated 16.05.2023, recounting of votes was to be done, however, the result of recounting of votes was not to be declared till the next date of listing.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that recounting of votes has been done.

Let the result of recounting of votes, which is in "sealed envelope", be placed before this Court by 06.11.2023.

Put up as fresh on 06.11.2023.”

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2023, a sealed envelop has been placed and opened before the Court. Keeping a photocopy of the same, on the record, the envelop is returned to Sri Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

5. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and perused the record.

6. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash an order dated 15.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 vide which an order directing recounting has been passed.

7. Brief facts of the case are that the elections of Gram Panchayat Amdariya, District Ballia were held on 02.05.2021, wherein the petitioner was declared elected. The defeated candidate, i.e., respondent no. 4, namely, Kalawati filed an election petition mainly on the following grounds which are in three folds:

(i) Two invalid votes of the petitioner were treated as valid and, therefore, she was shown to have secured 66