1. This petition has been preferred for quashment of Annexures P-5, P-6, P-8 and P-1 0 by the present petitioner whose election on the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat, Kanjariya was challenged and has been set aside by the impugned order.

2. The Collector-cum-Specified Officer, Dindouri vide order Annexure P-6 dated 17th of January, 2006 directed for recounting in the election petition. On recounting the election petitioner is found to have secured 567 votes as against 562 votes secured by the present petitioner. Accordingly, the election petitioner was declared elected vide Annexure P-8 dated 10.2.2006. Annexure P-10 is the report of recounting. Thus, Annexures P-6, P-8 and P-10 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents contested the election for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat Karanjiya District Dindouri Ward No.9. The election was held on 19.1.2005. Petitioner was found to have secured highest votes in counting and was, therefore, declared as Member of Janpad Panchayat from Ward No.9.

4. An election petition was preferred by the respondent No.1 under section 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 mainly on the ground that the voting was allowed even after expiry of scheduled time till late night. Voting was permitted on different polling booths at different hours. Accordingly, the counting of votes started in the late night which continued even after mid night. There was frequent intermittent power failure and there was no sufficient alternative arrangement of light at the time of polling as well as counting. Counting was held in the dim light of lanterns and mud lamps. It was alleged that proper counting could not take place for want of sufficient light and that several votes polled to her were included in the bundle of other candidates taking advantage of dim and insufficient light. An objection was taken by election petitioner that the counting shall be made in the broad day light but the same was turned down. This apart, the petitioner had entered into the polling booth No. 33 during the counting and sat with the Presiding Officer. He also participated in the counting by sorting out the ballot papers. Objections regarding the same were raised. Thus, it has been stated that the counting was affected materially due to the aforesaid irregularities. Application for the recounting of votes was submitted on the same day i.e. on 20th of January, 2005.

5. Accordingly, the election petitioner prayed for declaration that the election of the present petitioner may be declared void and direction for recounting be made. She also prayed for declaration in her favour as an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat Karanjiya.

6. The present petitioner submitted return refuting all the allegations.

7. After recording the evidence, the learned Collector-cum-Specified Officer, Dindouri allowed the election petition and directed recounting of votes vide Annexure P-6 dated 17th of January, 2006. Recounting was made and the election petitioner was found to have secured more votes. Accordingly, she was declared elected vide order dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-8). Proceedings of recounting are contained in Annexure P-10 which, too, have been challenged in the present writ petition.

8. Shri Ashok Lalwani, counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no material to direct for recounting. Election petitioner has failed to adduce cogent and sufficient evidence to reach on a conclusion that the counting was vitiated due to any sort of illegality or irregularity. According to learned counsel for the petitioner sanctity of election cannot lightly be disturbed by directing recounting, moreover, because the election petitioner has failed to establish that the counting of ballot papers was vitiated in the facts and circumstances.

9. He placed reliance on D.B. decision of this Court rendered in WP No. 677/06 [2007 (3) JLJ 301, Smt. Sampat Devi v.