IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2717-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on: 27.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 01.07.2025 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mohit Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Argued by:- Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Vishal Pundir, Mr. ARS Dhillon, Mr. Saket Bhandari, Mr. Devansh Verma and Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Kaushal and Ms. Pawelpreet Kaur, Advocates for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Challenge in the present Revision Petition is to the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-15), passed by the Election Tribunal, Panipat whereby the application filed by the Election petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, for recounting of votes, has been allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner and respondent no.1 had contested for election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu, District Panipat which was conducted on 02.11.2022. The petitioner was declared elected. However, upon a recount of votes conducted on 2.11.2022 itself, the respondent no.1 was then declared elected as Sarpanch on 2.11.2022. This action was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No.25694 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated 5.3.2024 (Annexure P-1). However, liberty was granted to the respondent no.1 to file election petition. In the said election petition, the respondent no.1 filed instant application seeking recount of votes; which has been allowed vide impugned order. Hence, present revision petition.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the first application filed by the respondent No.1 for recounting of votes already stood dismissed by the Election Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8). The said order was never challenged by respondent No.1. Thus, during pendency of the Election petition, there was no cause or occasion for respondent No.1 to file a second application for recounting of votes. It is contended that if votes are recounted time and again, there would be no end to this process. Moreover, the Election Tribunal had already dismissed the previous application of the respondent for recounting, and therefore, the Tribunal could not have gone against its own order (Annexure P8) in now directing that votes be recounted.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that if the Election Tribunal had wanted recount, it ought to have allowed the Election Petition and then ordered recount. In passing the impugned order, the Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Once having held that recount would amount to allowing the Election Petition, then how can recount be ordered now.

5. Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that in any event, no fruitful purpose will be served in recounting the votes as the ballot already stood compromised. It is submitted that in election, secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable. However, in the present case the secrecy of ballot and other election materials had been compromised. It has not been denied by Returning Officer PW7 that Ex.PW7/G which is the copy of result of Booth No.69 and deposited Form No.15, had been prepared again after opening the record and seal of the sealed covers by Presiding Officer Brijpal PW8. It is submitted that therefore, any recount if even conducted in pursuance to the impugned order would be rendered irrelevant.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that on 02.11.2022 itself, after having declared the petitioner as elected, a recount had already been conducted. It is submitted that the said recount dated 2.11.2022 was ostensibly on the basis of a video created by the Returning Officer Brijpal on his private phone. It is pointed out that the said video has not been proven in accordance with law; and although this fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order that the said video has not been proven