The presentation of an election petition must be made in accordance with the requirement under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules. The secrecy of the ballot should not be breached and an order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course.

D.P.S. Chauhan, J.

1. The election for the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gaundari, 27 Block Gangeo, Tahsil Sirmaur in Distt. Rewa took place on 23-5-1994 whereat the contest was between the petitioner and Smt. Bhanwati, (respondent No. 2). The petitioner in the process of counting of ballot papers, found to have secured 418 valid votes whereas the respondent No. 1 Smt. Bhanwati was found to have secured 376 valid votes and as such the petitioner was declared as duly elected for the office of Sarpanch. This election of the petitioner was challenged by the lost candidate i.e. Smt. Bhanwati by means of an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act") together with the Rules known as Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). The Sub-Divisional Officer after recount of the ballot papers set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the respondent No. 1 Smt. Bhanwati as having been duly elected to the office of the Sarpanch, vide order dated 13-6-1997. This order together with the order dated 27-1-1996 rejecting the preliminary objection of the petitioner to maintainability of the election petition (Annexure-P-7) as well as the order dated 31-5-1997 ordering the recount of the ballot papers (Annexure-P-8) to the petition are the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the election of the returned candidate (petitioner herein) was challenged by Smt. Bhanwati by means of an election petition under Section 122 of the Act. The Election Petition was filed in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer Sirmour on 23-7-1994 before the office Superintendent, which was put up before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 26-7-1994. Counsel for the petitioner Shri Munendra Pandey, as it appears, was present on this date before the Sub-Divisional Officer who made the following endorsement therein.

^^}kjk Jh equhUnz ik.Ms] vf/ko gLrk (illegible)

26-7-1994

S.D.O."

The prayer in the Election Petition was for recount of the ballot papers and declaration of the Election Petitioner, as duly elected to the office of Sarpanch. In the petition, it was stated that the counting was done at the polling centre and during the course of counting, there was no arrangement for light and the Returning Officer committed serious irregularities during the process of counting of ballot papers in respect of the valid as well as invalid votes and a large number of ballot papers, for variety of reasons, which were invalid, were counted in favour of the returned candidate, and about 80 to 90 invalid votes were counted in favour of returned candidate as valid votes and if invalid votes would not have been accepted as valid votes and counted in favour of the returned candidate the election petitioner would have succeeded. A favourable attitude was taken by the returning officer in favour of the returned candidate. Further the valid votes of the election petitioner were rejected as invalid and many valid votes of the election petitioner were wrongly counted in favour of the returned candidate. The election petitioner alleged that he orally objected to such counting process. Even on filing a written objection he was not heard. The election petitioner was not supplied the figures relating to the invalid votes by the returning officer, despite of demand and the objection was not decided till the declaration of the result.

3. The returned candidate filed preliminary objection before the Election Tribunal regarding the non-maintainability of the election petition as it was not having been properly presented, was liable to be rejected. The written Statement was also filed denying the allegations in the election petition saying that the election petition was filed on the basis of the incorrect