An election petitioner must provide clear and substantial evidence of material irregularities to warrant a recount; mere procedural errors or small margin discrepancies are insufficient.

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

This Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth of appeal) Adniyam, 2005 has been filed against the impugned Order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no 7755/2024, whereby writ petition has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the Specified Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa directing for recounting of votes.

(2) The impugned order is challenged on the ground of that the order dated 07.05.2024 passed in writ petition no.7755/2024 is not in accordance with law and beyond the pleadings of respondent no 2. Respondent no. 2 has neither raised the issue regarding re- counting slip of polling booth Nos.191 & 192 nor the counting slip was issued in Form 17, as required under Rule 77(2) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1995, before the Election Tribunal or in writ petition. Order of the Sub Divisional Officer would clearly reveal that the direction for recounting of votes has been issued in a mechanical manner only on the ground that the objection has been raised regarding the votes being declared invalid in polling station nos. 191 and 192. The impugned Order has been passed only on the statement of the Presiding Officer, without seeing and verifying the fact as to whether the election petitioner has anywhere pleaded that her election has been materially affected by declaration of certain votes invalid. Respondent no. 1 has not pleaded about any irregularity or illegality in respect of polling in booth No. 191 and 192. Nothing has been brought on record to show that in what manner the votes were wrongly declared to be invalid by the presiding officers. The Respondent no. 2 did not give adequate pleadings and ample evidence in her election petition which would have resulted into recounting of votes. Respondent no. 2 has nowhere in the election petition has pleaded that in what manner the votes which are alleged by her to be invalid and void, have been accepted in favour of appellant. Respondent no. 2 has thus nowhere in her election petition has pleaded and proved as to in what manner, her election has been materially affected by improper acceptance and rejection of votes. It is a trite law that an order for the counting of votes cannot be ordered as a matter of course unless the election petition had laid the foundation and there is clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner. Election petition seeking a recount of votes must contain a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. Only a small margin of victory by itself cannot be a ground for ordering recounting of votes. A roving and fishing inquiry is not permissible while directing the recounting of votes. It is submitted that the requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers has to be kept in mind before directing a recount. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 has not recorded any finding as to how the technicality not adhered