Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Exparte order final.- Where the returned candidate after filing reply neither appeared nor adduced allYevidence nor sought to get ex parte order set aside, the order becomes final and cannot be challenged. ,. ; i • • (PA) 172 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 " . 8.122 - error, If proof is furnished of some errors in respect of some ballot papers, scrutiny and recount cannot be limited to those ballot papers only. In Ha~3bury's Laws of England it is observed that prima facie proof of error complained of must be given by the election petitioner and it must further be shown that the errors are ofsuch magnitude that the result ofthe election sofar asJt affects the returned candidate is materially affected, then recount is directed. The Supreme Court, in AIR 1975 SC 283, has said, "recount can be ordered where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of ir- regularity or illegality are founded are pleaded adequately in the election petition, (ii) the CourtfI'ribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. If the order ofrecount is not in accordance with the law and on the basis of the material as required unner the law tilting of election result on account of the recount, cannot be a ground for maintaining the order of recount and thereby declaration ofthe result. Order ofrecount by Tribunal and on basis of recount order of setting aside election held not justified. Bahoranlal v. Ganeshprasad, AIR 1999 MP 7. See also: [2]Suman Santoshkumar Patel u.Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap, 1999 (1) MPLJ88. '[3]InAIR1989SC 640,Para'13'itis observed as follows,- . "The settled position oflaw is that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived from hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. On the contrary, the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation ofthe safety ofthe ballot is a sacrosanct principle which camiot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right ofa defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy ofthe ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests ofjustice, a Tribunal or Could should not order the recount of votes.'" In the instant case there was nothing beyond the pleading ofthe parties on record to enable the specified officer to form an opinion as required by Rule 21 of the Rules that there was in fact an improper acceptance or rejection of the votes or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which was void. In fact the specified officer has proceeded to order the recount merely to ascertain whether or not the allegations contained in the election petition with regard to the improper rejection or reception ofthe votes were true or not. This clearly indicates that the specified officer had not formed . , , S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHl., 1993 (PA)l71 ~". •. If L I ,. ,'- \ a concise statement of material facts and clear evidence in support of the facts pleaded. Small margin ofvictory by itself is not a ground for ordering recount. A roving and fishing inquiry is not permissible while directing recount of votes. The requirement of maintaining secrecy of ballot papers has to be kept in mind before directing a recount. The requisites for ordering re-count are a prima facie case and pleading ofmaterial facts detailing the irregularities in counting of votes. Birjha Bai v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 591 ~ 2008(1) MPHT 203 ••AIR 2008 (NOe) 2306 MP[DB]. [8] Recounting order was not proper since the Tribunal failed to ap- preciate factual sc.enarioin proper perspective. Further more, delegation of power of recount to a Committee and non. verification of ballot papersby Tribunal itself, is illegal and impermissible in absence ofany such provision. Smt. Sampat Devi v. S.D.a. cum Prescribed Authority Niwadi, Tikamgarh, AII~ 2007 (NOC) 2652 MP = 2007(3) MPHT 462 = 2007(3) JLJ 301 [DB]. [9]Recounting of votes and invalidation ofvotes.-As far as advert. ing into the merit with regard to recounting ofvotes and invalidation ofvotes are concerned, these questions could be decide only after issues are framed and evidence is recorded. Ravindra Singh v. SDa cum PrescribedAuthority, Datia. 2006(3) MPLJ 570 = 2006(3) MPHT 150. [10] See also: Ramavtar Budhouwa v. Smt. Susheela Singh, 2007(1) JLJ 54; Rafik Kiian-v.cS.D.G:Tuni'.Pres.-Authority;: 2007(3) -.J1i;r2if4;-'---'C:'C -::: ::: c-. Ramavlar Budhouwa v. Sml. Susheela Singh, 2007(1) JLJ 54; Rooprani (Sml.) v. Sub-Divisional affic~r, Damoh, 2007(3)-JLJ