A recount can only be ordered when specific allegations of counting irregularities are proven with supporting evidence, prioritizing electoral integrity over secrecy.

1. Heard Sri Shailendra Nath Tiwari learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Sahai learned Counsel for the respondent No. and learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. to 4.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Prescribed Authority / the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal in an election petition filed under S.12 - C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1947") whereby recounting of votes in the election held in the year 2015 of Gram Pradhan of Gram Mehuaa Hasanganj, Block and Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal has been ordered. The petitioner and respondent Nos. and were the candidates who contested the election to the office of Gram Pradhan, Village Panchayat Mehuaa Hasanganj, Block and Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal. Polling took place on 5.12.2015. Respondent No.. Smt. Ramwati preferred an election petition under S.12 - C of the Act stating therein that there were four Polling Booths numbered as Booth N6s. 1, 2,3 and 4.

3. The votes polled boothwise are as under: -

(i) Booth No. 1 - 647

(ii) Booth No. 2 - 828

(iii) Booth No. 3 - 557

(iv) Booth No. 4 - 504.

Counting took place on 13.12.2015. The election petitioner was present at the place of counting. However, she was shifted outside whereas her son Dharmveer was present at the counting table.

4. It is further contended that one Awadhesh son of Vijendra Singh who was assisting the Election Officer in the counting was related to the Returned candidate. This fact came to the knowledge of the election petitioner during the course of counting. The ballot box of booth No. was opened at about 9 : 30 AM without showing the same to the agents of the contesting candidates. On an objection raised by the election petitioner's agent namely Sri Dharamveer, he was refused to show the seal of the ballot box. Invalid ballot papers were counted in the number of votes counted for the Returned candidate, whereas the ballot papers having votes in favour of the election petitioner were declared invalid without showing it to the agent of the election petitioner. When her agent raised his voice, he was threatened by the agent of the Returned candidate. The counting was done in connivance with the Returning Officer who was out and out to help the Returned candidate. There is dispute with regard to the number of votes polled at every booth.

5. The election petitioner further states that her agent was informed that she won the election so she left home to reach where counting was done. However, when reached at the place of counting, she was told that the Returned candidate had won the election by margin of six votes. The election petitioner immediately raised dispute before the Returning Officer and requested him not to declare the result and for recount but her request was not heeded by the Returning Officer, hence the election petitioner had no" option but to file the election petition. The written statement was filed by the Returned candidate with the assertion that the agents of three contesting candidates were present at the place of counting. The allegation in the election petition is that Awadhesh Kumar, the assistant to the Returning Officer or the Returning Officer being related to the Returned candidate were denied. There was no irregularity in counting and declaration of result. Before the Prescribed Authority, the election petitioner and her agent Dharmveer had appeared and recorded their statement. The agent of election petitioner