Election petitions must demonstrate a prima facie case of irregularities for recounting of votes; non-framing of issues does not invalidate proceedings if parties understand the disputes.

1. Impeaching legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 29.5.2015 (Annexure P / 1) passed by respondent No.2 in Panchayat Nirvachan Case No.01B / 151/2014-15 and order dated 4.6.2015 (Annexure P / 2) passed by the respondent No.2 and Form 25 (R.83) (Annexure P / 3) issued by the respondent No.3, the present writ petition has been filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India by which the Specified Officer (Election Tribunal) has allowed the election petition filed by respondent No.6 / Manoj Kumar Tiwari and directed for recounting of the votes of polling booth No.182 out of three polling booths polled for election for the post of Gram Panchayat Mudpar, Janpad Panchayat Simga, District Balodabazaar - Bhatapara.

2. The essential facts necessary to judge the correctness of the impugned orders are as under: -
(i) The election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mudpar, Janpad Panchayat, Simga, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara was held on 28.1.2015 in which Mr. Yugal Kishore Verma (petitioner herein) was declared elected. He will be referred hereinafter as Returned Candidate.
(ii) Mr.Manoj Kumar Tiwari (one of defeated candidate / respondent No.6 herein) filed the election petition under S.122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1993') read with the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1995') questioning the election of the returned candidate. Specific ground was raised that in polling booth No.182, one of the candidate to the election Mr.Santosh Kumar Dhruve secured 39 votes and returned candidate Mr. Yugal Kishore Verma secured 144 votes, but at the time of issuing information in Form No.17 (Rule - 77 (2), Yugal Kishore Verma / Returned Candidate was shown to have secured 164 votes and Santosh Kumar Dhruve was shown to have secured 19 votes and thereby 20 votes cast in favour of Santosh Kumar Dhruve was counted in favour of Yugal Kishore Verma making it 164 votes and thereby he was declared Elected by margin of 8 votes, whereas election petitioner has secured 133 votes and if 20 votes are counted in favour of Santosh Kumar Dhruve / Election petitioner would be the Returned Candidate and therefore, prayer for recounting was made on behalf of respondent No.6 / Manoj Kumar Tiwari (defeated candidate).
(iii) Returned Candidate Yugal Kishore Verma filed his written statement and disputed the averments made in the election petition and asserted that he has secured 164 valid votes and Santosh Kumar Dhruve secured only 19 votes. The Polling Officer of polling booth No.182 was also impleaded as a party in the election petition. He has filed his reply before the Specified Officer on 24.2.2015 and stated that he has suffered eye surgery in recent past (2014) and he has a weak eye - sight and there is difference in the counting slip issued and statutory Form 17 prepared under Rule - 77 (2) of the Rules and he admitted his mistake in counting.
(iv) The Returning Officer being respondent No.8 in the election petition also filed his reply refuting the stand taken by the Polling Officer.
(v) Santosh Kumar Dhurve has filed his separate written statement and he has admitted that he has secured 39 valid votes in polling booth No.182.
(vi) On behalf of the Election Petitioner - Manoj Kumar Tiwari, election petitioner himself, Yashwant Kumar Sahu (counting agent of Election Petiti