MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Gangele, S.K. Palo, JJ.
Mansingh Parsoda - Appellant
Versus
Sachiv M.P. Rajya Nirvachan Aayog - Respondent
W. P. No. 2670-2012
Decided On : 24-09-2014
Election - Recounting of Votes - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993, M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995 - Rule 80, Rule 72
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the election of Ward Member of District Panchayat Guna and filed an election petition under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993. The authority ordered recounting of votes, but 16 ballot papers were found damaged and could not be recounted. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the court to address the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that if votes or ballot papers in certain polling stations are destroyed, recounting is not possible, and the earlier counting should be treated as final. The remaining votes and ballot papers, which could be recounted, should be recounted accordingly, and the result should be declared based on the recounting of votes and earlier counting of votes of those ballot boxes or polling stations that could not be recounted due to damage or destruction.
Issues: The issue was whether recounting of votes is possible when certain ballot papers are found to be damaged or destroyed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 80 of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995, which prescribes the power of recounting of votes and procedure, and concluded that recounting of votes could only be done if the votes and ballot papers are in good condition. If the ballot papers or votes are destroyed or damaged, then recounting of those ballot papers could not be done.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference by stating that if votes or ballot papers in certain polling stations are destroyed, then recounting of those ballot papers and votes is not possible, and the earlier counting should be treated as final. The remaining votes and ballot papers, which could be recounted, should be recounted accordingly, and the result should be declared based on the recounting of votes and earlier counting of votes of those ballot boxes or polling stations that could not be recounted subsequently due to damage or destruction.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. Writ Court has made present reference before the Division Bench.
3. The petitioner contested the election of Ward Member of District Panchayat Guna from Ward No. 1. Respondent No. 3 was declared elected by a margin of 113 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act of 1993'). The petitioner also prayed a relief of recounting. The authority vide order dt. 9th August 2011 ordered recounting of votes. When recounting was carried out, the authority - Collector-District Election Officer Guna found that the ballet papers of polling centers No. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 60, 97, 276, 277, 278 and 279 total 16 were damaged due to seepage and it was not possible to recount them. Hence, the Collector sought the explanation from the authority that whether counting of earlier votes of those 16 polling centers be counted as it is or the votes of the polling centers be declared as zero (0) and thereafter the result of recounting be declared. When the result of recounting was not declared, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court.
4. Learned Writ Court has formulated the following substantial question of law and referred the same to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with recommendation to refer the matter before the Larger Bench:
"If appropriate forum directs recounting of the votes and if it is found that the votes in certain polling stations are destroyed, what direction can be issued in this regard?"
5. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice referred the matter to the Division Bench to answer the aforesaid reference.
6. Rule 80 of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to the 'Rules of 1995') prescribes recount of votes. The relevant provision of this court is as under :-
"80. Recount of votes.-(1) After an announcement has been made by the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, of the total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of rule 77, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or his counting agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer or such officer authorised by him, for a recount of all or any of the votes already counted, stating the grounds on which the demands such recount.
(2) On such an application being made the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.
(3) Every decision of the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor.
(4) If the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application either in whole or in part, he shall-
(a) count the ballot papers again in accordance with his decision;
(b) amend the result sheet to the extent necessary after such recount; and
(c) announce the amendment so made by him.
(5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (2) of rule 77 or sub-rule (4) the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall complete and sign the result sheet and no application for a recount shall be entertained thereafter:
Provided that no step under this sub- rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (1).
(6) The counted ballot papers shall be bundled and kept in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 77."
7. In the rule, there is no provision that what would happen when it is not possible to recount certain votes due to destruction. However, Rule 72 of the Rules of 1995 prescribes fresh poll in case of destruction, tempering etc. of ballot
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.