The election petition must contain adequate statement of all material facts on which the allegations of irregularity and illegality in counting are founded. The Tribunal should not conduct a roving inquiry to ascertain irregularities in the counting process and interference can only be made on the basis of strong pleading supported by solid evidence.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order of Election Tribunal dated 14.9.2016 Annexure P/10 whereby the Tribunal directed for recounting of votes and as a consequence thereof the respondent No.1 secured more votes than the petitioner and was declared elected. The admitted facts between the parties are that this Court by order dated 14.9.2016 did not grant stay on the operation of impugned order but made it clear that decision of recounting would be subject to final outcome of this petition. The petitioner and other private respondents were candidates for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nayagaon. The petitioner was elected by a margin of one vote. The said election of petitioner was called in question by respondent No.1 by filing Election Petition under Section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘Adhiniyam’) read with M.P. Panchayat (Nirvachan Arjia, Bhrastachar Aur Sadasyta Ke Liye Nirharta) Niyam, 1995 (‘Disqualification Rules, 1995).

2. In the said Election Petition, reliance is placed by respondent No.1 on the application dated 27.2.2015 Annexure P/2. By this application, the election petitioner allegedly raised his objection on the counting and prayed for recounting.

3. After completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Election Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 5.9.2016 Annexure P/4 and directed for recounting.

4. Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed this order by contending that (a) there is no pleading how many votes allegedly cast in favour of respondent No.1 were counted in favour of petitioner; (b) there exists no foundation how votes cast in favour of respondent No.1 were counted in favour of the petitioner; (c) the nature of alleged manipulation in relation to form 17 is not established; (d) there are no material facts and particulars in the election petition on the strength of which recount could have been ordered; (e) no issue regarding recount has been framed by the Tribunal; (f) the Tribunal has directed recounting on the basis of certain considerations which were beyond the pleadings and proof. In addition, it is submitted that Rule 80 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (‘Nirvachan Niyam, 1995) is a complete Code in itself for the purpose of recounting of votes. As per pleading of respondent No.1 himself, it is clear that no objection was raised nor any demand was raised within stipulated time demanding such recount. A conjoint reading of pleadings in the election petition and evidence of election petitioners shows that he could not establish about any illegality which warrants a direction of recounting. In support of his aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on AIR 1989 SC 640 (P.K.K. Shamsudeen vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others), AIR 1993 SC 367 (Satyanarain Dudhani vs. Uday Kumar Singh and others), AIR 1997 SC 3072 (Smt. Ram Rati vs. Saroj Devi and others), AIR 2000 SC 153 (T.H. Musthaffa vs. M.P. Varghese and others) and the order passed by this Court in WP No.21225/2016 (Balwan Singh vs. State of M.P. ande others) in Balwan Singh vs. State of M.P.. He also placed reliance on 2013 (3) ILR MP 1793 (Ganesh Ram Gayatri vs. Bagdiram and others).

5. Per contra, Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and urged that in the original round of counting petitioner succeeded by only one vote. Thus, by following the judgment of this Court in 2005 (4) MPHT 74 (Ram Rati vs. Sub Divisional Officer and others), Tribunal has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order. It needs no interference by this Court. He submits that there are sufficient material facts and particulars pleaded by election petitioner supported by adequate evidence. Thus, no case for interference is made out by the election petitioner.

6. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have hea