IMPORTANT POINT
The revisional court has the authority to direct recounting of votes and examine material irregularities in election petitions under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on board.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by Revisional Court in Election Revision No.21 of 2024 reversing the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal in an election petition under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in brevity 'Act 1947').

3. Facts culled out from the record are that in the Panchayat Election 2020-21 pertains to village Magrasa, Block Bidhanu, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar as many as eight persons had contested the election of Pradhan, out of them present petitioner has been declared successful as a Pradhan securing 334 votes. However, Seema Sahu (respondent no.1 herein) has been declared first runner securing 333 votes. In said election total 2010 votes were counted, whereas number of the votes casted were 2016. Apart from that 120 votes were declared invalid, wherein, as per claim of the respondent no.1, eighteen (18) votes casted in her favour has illegally been declared invalid. Having been aggrieved with the result, an application dated 02.05.2021 (paper no.11) has been moved by the husband of the respondent no.1 before the Returning Officer to recount the ballot papers intending to short out the difference of six ballot papers. Subsequently, representation dated 03.05.2021 (paper no.12) has been moved to Election Officer, Kanpur Nagar pointing out the discrepancies during the counting. On the same day representation was moved as well before the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner of India, New Delhi. Thereafter, representation dated 04.05.2021 has been moved to all concerned through registered post beseeching recounting of the ballot papers. Last representation was moved on 11.05.2021 to the Election Officer and the State Election Commissioner including the Chief Minister complaining about the discrepancies in the counting of ballot papers. Lastly, respondent no.1 has filed election petition dated 28.05.2021 under Section 12-C of Act 1947 with the specific prayer for recounting of ballot papers. Learned Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 08.01.2024, has rejected the election petition. On revision being filed on behalf of the election petitioner (respondent no.1), learned District and Sessions Judge, Court NO.19, Kanpur Nagar (Revisional Court) has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the Prescribed Authority with the specific direction to recount the ballot papers, after scrutinizing the 18 invalid ballot papers, under the provisions as enunciated under Rule 104 (f) of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election of members, pradhans and up-pradhans) Rules, 1994 (in brevity 'Election Rules, 1994'), which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two fold submissions, first with regard to the ex-part order passed by the revisional court inasmuch as notice has illegally been shown to be served upon her whereas no such notice was served either to the petitioner or her husband. Secondly, he has questioned the jurisdiction of the revisional court to issue a direction for recounting of ballot papers and submitted that the provision of revision as enunciated under Section 12-C Rules 6 of the Act, 1947 is akin to the revisional power under Section 115 C.P.C., therefore, revisional court has got no jurisdiction to enter into the factual aspect of the matter except to examine the jurisdictional error committed by the Prescribed Authority in deciding the election petition. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Guru Prasad v. Additional District Judge, Misc. Writ Single No.27 of 2013 decided on 22.02.2013, (2013) 2 LAWS (All) 288 and the case of Jagdamba Prasad v. Kripa Shankar, (2014) 4 LAWS (SC) 10 decided by