Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[6J In ex parte proceedings recounting order by tribunal.-No issue framed by the Election Tribunal because the proceedings were ex parte still Tribunal recorded evidence and found that earlier two applications for recounting before Presiding Officer and before Returning Officer not con- sidered and no order was issued on both applications. Result of counting of voles was also equal and matter decided by drawing lots. Held, no fault in recounting oi.der by Tribunal. Shivan Lal v. S.D. a: (Rev.), Multdi, 2006(4) .~ ffIr-aT 401. 17] Recounting order not permissible.-(i) Tribunal directed recount- ing of votes for the reason that volume of rejected votes was very high and 2173 votes were rejected. Held, order ofrecounting of votes is not permissible only for the reason of high volume of rejected votes when there is no specific irregularity in the counting is pointed out and unless no sound legal reasons found. Kamlesh Bai v. Upper Commr. Bhopal & Hoshangabad, 2008 (2) MPLJ 558 = 2008(2) MPHT 466 = AIR 2008;(NOC) 1318 MP. (ii) The petitioner not stated about any irregularity or illegality in respect of poling in booth NO.20. Nothing has be.en brought on record. The questionlhat emerges for consideration is whether there is adequate plead- ings and ample evidence to direct recount of votes. An order for recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course unless the electipn petition had laid the foundation and there is clinching evidence to support the case set up by the election petitioner. An eleCtion petition seeking a recount must contain •• • • • • • • • S.122 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 (PA)169 , MPLJ 121=2002 (3) MPHT 547.