( 1. ) PETITIONER has invoked power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of order dated 4-10-2004 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopadbanas, District Sidhi in Election Petition No.

1/2003-04 (Shivkali v. Dashmanti and Ors.), by which the respondent No. 1 directed recounting of votes for the election held on 20th December, 2002 for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kukudijhar Gopadbanas, District Sidhi. ( 2. ) THE facts necessary for the decision of the case as stated by respondent No. 2 Shivkali in the election petition filed before respondent No. 1 are that election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kukudijhar was held on 20-12-2002. In the said election respondent No. 2 and petitioner were rivals apart from other six rival candidates. During the course of counting of votes there was manipulation and the valid votes received by respondent No. 2 were kept in rejected votes. In the result it is declared that petitioner Ram Rati got 318 votes and respondent No. 2 got 317 votes and by a margin of only one vote petitioner was declared elected Sarpanch for the one post. Respondent No. 2 immediately applied for recounting, but her application was not accepted.

Thereafter on the same day at 7. 30 P. M. respondent No. 2 filed an application for re-counting to the Election Officer, but he returned it and thereafter the election petition was filed. The main allegation in the petition is that valid votes received by respondent No. 2 were kept in the rejected votes, which affected the interest of respondent No. 2 seriously. On the aforesaid ground the election petition has been filed with a prayer for recounting and for declaration of result of petitioner as invalid.

( 3. ) THE petitioner by filing reply contested the election petition and all the allegation of election petition have been denied. The petitioner also raised a contention that the election petition is not verified and is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 framed - issues and recorded - evidence of parties. Respondent No. 1 while deciding issue No. 1 found that the election petition has been verified by filing affidavit of respondent No. 2, which is proper and on this ground the election petition can not be rejected. While deciding issue No. 2 in respect of recounting the respondent No. 1 considered the evidence of respondent No. 2 and her witnesses Ramratan Gupta, Zalim Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, who have stated that the valid votes were kept in invalid (rejected) votes and thereafter the petitioner was declared as returned candidate. The respondent No. 2 filed an application for recounting, but it was rejected by the Presiding Officer. The petitioner examined herself and also witnesses Kailash Prasad and Virendra Kumar, who have stated that there was proper counting of votes and no application for recounting was filed by respondent No. 2 to the Presiding Officer. The respondent No. 1 considering the evidence and impressed with the fact that there is difference of only one vote and there are serious allegations in respect of rejection of valid votes and found a case for recounting and directed recounting of votes. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that. there was no proper verification of election petition and merely there was a margin of one vote, will not be a ground for directing recounting of votes. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment in Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and Ors. , ,, AIR1993 SC 367 , 1993 (41 ) BLJR278 , 1992 (3 )SCALE221 , 1993 Supp (2 )SCC82 , a Division Bench decision of the this Court in Gendalal v. A. R. Navkar, 1981 JLJ 163 and Single Bench decision in Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and Ors. , , AIR1996 MP 43 and contended that the impugned order be quashed.

( 5. ) THE respondent No. 2 supported the order on the ground that there is proper verification of election petition by respondent No. 2 by filing affidavit an