Election recounts must adhere to procedural rules; evidence requirements are essential, and judicial review emphasizes strict adherence to pleadings.

ORDER :

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the order dated 28.8.2023 (Annexure P3) passed by the Election Tribunal of Collector, Distt. Sidhi (MP), whereby the election petition of the respondent No.5 challenging election of the petitioner as a member of Janpad Panchayat Majholi, Distt. Sidhi, has been allowed by ordering recount of votes. The order annexure P-5 dated 15.9.2023 rejecting revision against the said order has also been put to challenge whereby the Commissioner has rejected the Revision on the ground of the same being not maintainable.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Collector has wrongly passed the order annexure P-3 directing recount without there being any just and rational basis for such an order. It is also stated that the Election Tribunal/Collector did not follow the procedure and neither framed issues, nor took evidence of the parties. By referring to the order sheets drawn by the Collector from the date of filing of the Election Petition to the date of passing of final order, it is pointed out that the case was not even fixed for evidence. The record of the election process was called and after receipt of the record, the case was straight away heard finally and the order of recount was passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the only consideration that weighed in the mind of the authority/Election Tribunal was that there was only 1 (one) vote winning margin in favour of the petitioner. It is argued by the learned senior counsel that mere fact of the election being a close contest is not sufficient to order recount, unless a palpable error or malpractice is established in the matter of counting of votes, that too after giving the parties due opportunity to rebut the allegations of malpractices in counting process.

4. The learned senior counsel also contended that the Election Tribunal has carried out a roving enquiry in the matter and allowed recount of votes noting an irregularity that was not even alleged by the election petitioner in the election petition. It is thus, contended that the enquiry in challenge to election should be restricted to the pleadings of the parties and no roving enquiry can be carried out for the matters that are not agitated by the election petitioner. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar , (2004) 6 SCC 331 and in the case of M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy , (2004) 6 SCC 341 . Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of P.K.K. Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Others , reported in 1989 (1) SCC 526.

5. It is also contended that as per rule 11 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995, it has been laid down that the Election Tribunal shall follow the same procedure as laid down for trial of Civil suits. Thus, there was failure of mandatory procedure in not framing issues and not taking evidence of the parties. To buttress this submission, he has relied upon the judgment passed in the cases of Vadivelu v. Sundaram and Ors. , reported in 2000 (8) SCC 355, Ram Niwas vs. Pooran and Ors , reported in 2001 (II) MPJR 198, Pooran vs. The Election Officer and Ors , reported in 2001 (II) MPJR 190 and 3 Rameshchandra Bhilala vs. Bashir and Ors. , reported in 2011 (1) MPHT 35. It is, thus, contended