IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep Singh Mohit Kumar & Others CORAM: Argued by:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. order dated 22 Panipat whereby the application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 allowed. 2. respondent no.1 Panchayat, Buana 02.11.2022. recount of votes IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Kuldeep Singh Vs. Mohit Kumar & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA 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 order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-15), passed by the whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein, for recounting of votes, has been Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner and ent no.1 had contested for election of Sarpanch Panchayat, Buana Lakhu, District Panipat which was conducted on The petitioner was declared elected. However, upon a recount of votes conducted on 2.11.2022 itself 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 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Vishal Pundir, Mr. ARS Dhillon, , Mr. Devansh Verma and Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocates Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Kaushal and Ms. Pawelpreet Kaur, Advocates Challenge in the present Revision Petition is to the passed by the Election Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the Election for recounting of votes, has been Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner and had contested for election of Sarpanch of Gram Lakhu, District Panipat which was conducted on The petitioner was declared elected. However, upon a itself, the respondent no.1 was 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document then declared elected as challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP 2022, which was allowed However, liberty was granted to the respondent no petition. In the s application seeking recount of votes; which has been allowed impugned order. Hence, present revision petition. 3. appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the first application filed by the respondent No.1 for recounting of votes al Election Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8) order was never the Election petition, to file a second votes are recounted time and again, there would be no process. Moreover, previous application of the respondent for recounting, and therefore, the Tribunal could not directing that votes be recounted. 4. Tribunal had wanted recount, it ought to have allowed the Election Petition and then ordered recount. I Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Once having held that declared elected as Sarpanch on 2.11.2022 challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP which was allowed vide order dated liberty was granted to the respondent no In the said election petition, the respondent no.1 filed application seeking recount of votes; which has been allowed impugned order. Hence, present revision petition. It is inter alia submitted by learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the first application filed by the respondent No.1 for recounting of votes al Election Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8) never challenged by respondent No.1. the Election petition, there was no cause or occasion for respondent No.1 a second application for recounting of votes. votes are recounted time and again, there would be no Moreover, the Election Tribunal previous application of the respondent for recounting, and therefore, the could not have gone against its own order (Annexure P8) in now directing that votes be recounted. 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 im Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Once having held that on 2.11.2022. This action was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No.25694 of order dated 5.3.2024 (Annexure P-1). liberty was granted to the respondent no.1 to file election election petition, the respondent no.1 filed instant application seeking recount of votes; which has been allowed vide impugned order. Hence, present revision petition. 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 nged by respondent No.1. Thus, during pendency of cause or occasion for respondent No.1 application for recounting of votes. It is contended that if votes are recounted time and again, there would be no end to this had already dismissed the previous application of the respondent for recounting, and therefore, the against its own order (Annexure P8) in now Learned Senior Counsel submits that if the Election Tribunal had wanted recount, it ought to have allowed the Election passing the impugned order, the Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Once having held that 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document recount would amount to allowing the Election Petition, then how can recount be ordered 5. no fruitful pur already stood compromised. It is submitted that in ballot is sacrosanct and secrecy of ballot and other election materials ha has not been denied by copy of result of Booth No.69 and deposited Form No.15 prepared again after opening the record and seal of the sealed covers Presiding Officer Brijpa even conducted in pursuance to the impugned order would be rendered irrelevant. 6. itself, after having declared the petitioner as elected, a recount already been 2.11.2022 was Officer Brijpal on his private phone has not been proven in accordance with law been recorded by the said video has not been proven in drive in which it has been presented is unreliable, yet a recount has been ordered. It is argued that when the very basis recount would amount to allowing the Election Petition, then how can recount be ordered now. Ld. Senior Counsel further submit no fruitful purpose will be served in recounting the votes as the ballot already stood compromised. It is submitted that in ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable. However, in secrecy of ballot and other election materials ha has not been denied by Returning Officer PW copy of result of Booth No.69 and deposited Form No.15 again after opening the record and seal of the sealed covers Officer Brijpal PW8. It is submitted that therefore, any recount if even conducted in pursuance to the impugned order would be rendered Learned Senior Counsel submits that on 02.11.2022 itself, after having declared the petitioner as elected, a recount 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 Ret Officer Brijpal on his private phone. It is point has not been proven in accordance with law been recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order that the said video has not been proven in accordance with law and even the pen drive in which it has been presented is unreliable, yet a recount has been ordered. It is argued that when the very basis recount would amount to allowing the Election Petition, then how can further submits that in any event, pose will be served in recounting the votes as the ballot already stood compromised. It is submitted that in election, secrecy of However, in the present case the secrecy of ballot and other election materials had been compromised. It Officer PW7 that Ex.PW7/G which is the copy of result of Booth No.69 and deposited Form No.15, had been again after opening the record and seal of the sealed covers by It is submitted that therefore, any recount if even conducted in pursuance to the impugned order would be rendered Learned Senior Counsel submits that on 02.11.2022 itself, after having declared the petitioner as elected, a recount had . It is submitted that the said recount dated ostensibly on the basis of a video created by the Returning pointed out that the said video has not been proven in accordance with law; and although this fact has in the impugned order that the accordance with law and even the pen drive in which it has been presented is unreliable, yet a recount has been ordered. It is argued that when the very basis fundamental to the dispute 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at hand - which is the video/pen drive to be not proven in accordance with law, then the very basis of not just the recount but also the Election Petition is demolished. Counsel argues 02.11.2022 itself unnecessary. upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh & Another” accordingly prayed that the present petition be impugned order be set aside. 7. of respondent No.1 submits that vide order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P1), the respondent No.1 had duly Election Petition. soon thereafter Election Petition, an objection was received had not been filed in time. dismissed by the learned Tribunal; whereupon the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.2825 of 2024, which was also dismissed by whereupon the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No.25303 of 2024, which was also dismissed by the learned which is the video/pen drive in the present case to be not proven in accordance with law, then the very basis of not just the recount but also the Election Petition is demolished. argues that therefore, even the initial recount conducted on 02.11.2022 itself is shoddy; and the present recount is utterly unnecessary. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh & Another” (2009) 10 SCC 170; Law Finder Doc ID # 204039. ccordingly prayed that the present petition be impugned order be set aside. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that vide order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P1), the respondent No.1 had duly been given liberty by this Court to file Election Petition. Accordingly, respondent No.1 had filed Election Petition thereafter on dated 16.03.2024 itself. It is submitted that in the said Election Petition, an objection was received had not been filed in time. The said objection dismissed by the learned Tribunal; whereupon the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.2825 of 2024, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024; whereupon the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP (C) No.25303 of 2024, which was also dismissed by the learned in the present case – has been held to be not proven in accordance with law, then the very basis of not just the recount but also the Election Petition is demolished. Ld. Senior that therefore, even the initial recount conducted on shoddy; and the present recount is utterly In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Udey Chand Vs. Surat 10 SCC 170; Law Finder Doc ID # 204039. It is ccordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that vide order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure been given liberty by this Court to file Accordingly, respondent No.1 had filed Election Petition on dated 16.03.2024 itself. It is submitted that in the said Election Petition, an objection was received from the petitioner that same The said objection of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal; whereupon the petitioner had approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.2825 of 2024, this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024; whereupon the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP (C) No.25303 of 2024, which was also dismissed by the learned 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Apex Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 categorically holding therein that “The Election Petition is clearly within the limitation period.”. 8. that the initial application filed by respondent No.1 before the Election Tribunal for interim recount had been dismissed vide order 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8) on the ground that at that stage, the matter was still at the stage of examination therefore, it was held that interim recount was not called for. Senior Counsel contends that in contras ordering recount vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal was fully apprised of the entire dispute concluded; findings on all the issues were duly returned by the learned Tribunal; whereupon that for the resolution of the dispute at hand, and for adjudication of the matter Senior Counsel argues that entirety the learned Tribunal had satisfied itself adjudication of the matter, it was necessary to conduct the recount; and it is for this well thought directed. It is order and the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. In support, learned Senior Counsel relies upon this Court in Apex Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 categorically holding therein that Election Petition is clearly within the limitation period.”. Ld. Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that the initial application filed by respondent No.1 before the Election Tribunal for interim recount had been dismissed vide order 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8) on the ground that at that stage, the matter was still at the stage of examination-in- therefore, it was held that interim recount was not called for. Senior Counsel contends that in contrast, at the ordering recount vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal was fully apprised of the entire dispute. The entire evidence had been led and findings on all the issues were duly returned by the learned ; whereupon a positive finding was given by the learned Tribunal the resolution of the dispute at hand, and for adjudication of the matter, it was necessary to conduct recount. Learned Senior Counsel argues that after having considered the learned Tribunal had satisfied itself adjudication of the matter, it was necessary to conduct the recount; and it well thought-out and considered reason that recount was directed. It is contended that therefore, there is no error in the impugned and the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be In support, learned Senior Counsel relies upon this Court in Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal Apex Court vide order dated 08.11.2024 categorically holding therein that Election Petition is clearly within the limitation period.”. Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that the initial application filed by respondent No.1 before the Election Tribunal for interim recount had been dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8) on the ground that at that stage, the matter -chief of the witnesses; and therefore, it was held that interim recount was not called for. Learned t, at the present juncture, while ordering recount vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal was fully . The entire evidence had been led and findings on all the issues were duly returned by the learned a positive finding was given by the learned Tribunal the resolution of the dispute at hand, and for the proper it was necessary to conduct recount. Learned after having considered the matter in its the learned Tribunal had satisfied itself that for the proper adjudication of the matter, it was necessary to conduct the recount; and it out and considered reason that recount was contended that therefore, there is no error in the impugned and the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be In support, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgments of Radha Kishan v. Election Tribunal-cum-Sub-Judge, HIssar, 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (P&H)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 26219 Tribunal, Karnal and Others 9. submits that it is incorrect for learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 to suggest that the matter had been finally considered by the Election Tribunal and that findings in respect of all issues ha learned Tribunal. important and crucial issue has been returned by the learned Tribunal. fact, even the evidence in the present case has not yet been concluded as vide the present/second application (Annexure P12) filed by respondent No.1 for recount of votes, a second prayer to the effect that respondent No.1 be permitted to summon witness No.9 for rebuttal, had also been made by respondent No.1. It is submitted that therefore, after having dismissed the first application of respondent No.1 for recount, the second application of respondent No.1 also for interim recounting could n 10. 11. given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both t behalf of the respondent No.1 for the reasons recorded hereinbelow: 12. Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana (P&H)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 26219 Tribunal, Karnal and Others (P&H): Law Finder Doc ID # 882838 In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is incorrect for learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 to suggest that the matter had been finally considered by the Election and that findings in respect of all issues ha learned Tribunal. It is submitted that no finding in respect of the most important and crucial issue has been returned by the learned Tribunal. even the evidence in the present case has not yet been concluded as vide the present/second application (Annexure P12) filed by respondent No.1 for recount of votes, a second prayer to the effect that respondent No.1 be permitted to summon witness No.9 for rebuttal, had also been made by respondent No.1. It is submitted that therefore, after having dismissed the first application of respondent No.1 for recount, the second application of respondent No.1 also for interim recounting could not have been allowed by the learned Tribunal. No other argument is raised on behalf of the I have heard learned Senior given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1 for the reasons recorded hereinbelow: Dispute in the present case pertains to the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu, District Panipat which was (P&H)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 26219; and Sandeep Vs. Election Law Finder Doc ID # 882838. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is incorrect for learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 to suggest that the matter had been finally considered by the Election and that findings in respect of all issues had been returned by the It is submitted that no finding in respect of the most important and crucial issue has been returned by the learned Tribunal. In even the evidence in the present case has not yet been concluded as vide the present/second application (Annexure P12) filed by respondent No.1 for recount of votes, a second prayer to the effect that respondent No.1 be permitted to summon witness No.9 for leading evidence in rebuttal, had also been made by respondent No.1. It is submitted that therefore, after having dismissed the first application of respondent No.1 for recount, the second application of respondent No.1 also for interim ot have been allowed by the learned Tribunal. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. Senior counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.1 for the reasons recorded hereinbelow: - Dispute in the present case pertains to the election of Lakhu, District Panipat which was 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document conducted on 02.11.2022. There were total 6 Booths being Booth No.65 to 70. Seven candidates had participated in the election, including the petitioner and contesting candidate received highest number of votes being 1117 v polled. Whereas respondent No.1 had received 804 votes out of 3767 votes. The petitioner having won by margin of 313 votes was declared elected; and Form 19 (Result of Election) and Form No.21 were issued in favour of Returning Officer Brijpal/ respondent No.7. No application was given by the respondent No.1 to the Returning Officer under Rule 69 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred t “1964 Rules”) for recounting of votes on day of polling. Accordingly, all poll material including the result, EVM, etc. was sealed under Rules 56 and 57 of the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone home. All the above had transpired on 02.11.2022 13. respondent No.1 had gathered at the polling Booth No.69 and created ruckus and law and order situation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat was informed, and Police Force was calle Election Staff of Booth No.69 along with respondent no.1 supporters, were taken in a Bus to Control Room with the Election Record and EVM, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that at this stage, the father of the respondent N conducted on 02.11.2022. There were total 6 Booths being Booth No.65 to 70. Seven candidates had participated in the election, including the petitioner and contesting candidate - respondent no.1. The petitioner received highest number of votes being 1117 v polled. Whereas respondent No.1 had received 804 votes out of 3767 votes. The petitioner having won by margin of 313 votes was declared elected; and Form 19 (Result of Election) and Form No.21 were issued in favour of the petitioner. The result was duly signed by the Returning Officer Brijpal/ respondent No.7. No application was given by the respondent No.1 to the Returning Officer under Rule 69 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred t “1964 Rules”) for recounting of votes on day of polling. Accordingly, all poll material including the result, EVM, etc. was sealed under Rules 56 and 57 of the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone home. All the above had transpired on 02.11.2022 itself. However, in the evening of 02.11.2022 supporters of respondent No.1 had gathered at the polling Booth No.69 and created ruckus and law and order situation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat was informed, and Police Force was calle Election Staff of Booth No.69 along with respondent no.1 , were taken in a Bus to Control Room with the Election Record and EVM, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that at this stage, the father of the respondent No.1 and his supporters who had also gone in the Bus conducted on 02.11.2022. There were total 6 Booths being Booth No.65 to 70. Seven candidates had participated in the election, including the respondent no.1. The petitioner received highest number of votes being 1117 votes out of 3767 votes polled. Whereas respondent No.1 had received 804 votes out of 3767 votes. The petitioner having won by margin of 313 votes was declared elected; and Form 19 (Result of Election) and Form No.21-B (Declaration) the petitioner. The result was duly signed by the Returning Officer Brijpal/ respondent No.7. No application was given by the respondent No.1 to the Returning Officer under Rule 69 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “1964 Rules”) for recounting of votes on day of polling. Accordingly, all poll material including the result, EVM, etc. was sealed under Rules 56 and 57 of the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone home. All the above However, in the evening of 02.11.2022 supporters of respondent No.1 had gathered at the polling Booth No.69 and created ruckus and law and order situation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat was informed, and Police Force was called. Subsequently, the Election Staff of Booth No.69 along with respondent no.1 and his , were taken in a Bus to Control Room with the Election Record and EVM, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that at this stage, the father o.1 and his supporters who had also gone in the Bus 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to the Control Room, had tampered with the record. In the late evening of 02.11.2022, the petitioner was informed by the Returning Officer that recounting is to be done; for which the petitioner was calle Control Room (SD School). When the petitioner reached the Control Room, he was told that he had lost the election; and Forms No.19 and 21 B had now been issued to the respondent No.1 who has elected as Sarpanch. 14. Electoral Officer, Haryana State Election Commission, however, no action was taken. 15. of Civil Writ Petition No.25694 of 2022 seeking issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the Election Certificate Form No.21 dated 02.11.2022 issued in favour of respondent No.1 by Returning Officer/respondent No.7 after having declared the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana No.19 and 21 allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P1), as follows: to the Control Room, had tampered with the record. In the late evening of 02.11.2022, the petitioner was informed by the Returning Officer that recounting is to be done; for which the petitioner was calle Control Room (SD School). When the petitioner reached the Control Room, he was told that he had lost the election; and Forms No.19 and 21 B had now been issued to the respondent No.1 who has elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner made a representation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana State Election Commission, however, no action The petitioner had then approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.25694 of 2022 seeking issuance of a Writ in the ure of Certiorari for setting aside the Election Certificate Form No.21 dated 02.11.2022 issued in favour of respondent No.1 by Returning Officer/respondent No.7 after having declared the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Buana Lakhu and No.19 and 21-B in favour of the petitioner. The said Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure P1), as follows:- “22. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is It is held that after the petitioner was duly declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Form 21-B stood issued in favour of the petitioner, then subsequent to declaration of such result, the respondent No. 4 did not have the jurisdiction to alter or change or correct to the Control Room, had tampered with the record. In the late evening of 02.11.2022, the petitioner was informed by the Returning Officer that recounting is to be done; for which the petitioner was called to the Control Room (SD School). When the petitioner reached the Control Room, he was told that he had lost the election; and Forms No.19 and 21- B had now been issued to the respondent No.1 who has been declared made a representation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana State Election Commission, however, no action The petitioner had then approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.25694 of 2022 seeking issuance of a Writ in the ure of Certiorari for setting aside the Election Certificate Form No.21-B dated 02.11.2022 issued in favour of respondent No.1 by Returning Officer/respondent No.7 after having declared the petitioner as elected Lakhu and after issuance of Forms B in favour of the petitioner. The said Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2024 In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed. It is held that after the petitioner was duly declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu and Form 19 and B stood issued in favour of the petitioner, then subsequent to declaration of such result, the respondent No. t have the jurisdiction to alter or change or correct 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. respondent No.1 filed instant Election Petition application for recounting following prayer: the so-called mistake in Form 19 and Form 21 respondent No. 5. Consequently, the action of the concerned authority to declare respondent No. 5 elected Sarpanch by issuing a revised/fresh Form 19 and Form 21-B, in his name, subsequent to declaring petitioner as elected Sarpanch of village Buana Form 19 and Form 21-B, in the name of petitioner; is declared illegal and accordingly the Election dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued to respondent No. 5 (Mohit Kumar) is set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to notify the name of the petitioner as an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Buana directed to ensure that the petitioner is administered oath of office of the post of Sarpanch within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of copy of this order. However, liberty is given to respondent No. 5 to challenge the election of the petitioner by filing an election petition under Section 176 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and it is hoped that the petition filed by respondent No. 5 will be disposed of by the Election Tribunal as early as possible but latest within 3 months after the s In face of the above said liberty granted by this Court, respondent No.1 filed instant Election Petition application for recounting dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure P2) with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may kindly be declared as winning candidate for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakha Tehsil & Block Israna District Panipat and it is further prayed that the certificate of called mistake in Form 19 and Form 21-B in favour of respondent No. 5. Consequently, the action of the concerned authority to declare respondent No. 5-Mohit Kumar as revised/fresh Form 19 and Form B, in his name, subsequent to declaring petitioner as elected Sarpanch of village Buana Lakhu upon issuance of B, in the name of petitioner; is declared illegal and accordingly the Election Certificate Form No. 21-B 3), issued to respondent No. 5 (Mohit Kumar) is set aside. Respondent No. 4 is directed to notify the name of the petitioner as an elected Sarpanch of Lakhu and respondent No. 4 is rected to ensure that the petitioner is administered oath of office of the post of Sarpanch within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of copy of this order. However, liberty is given to respondent No. 5 to challenge the tioner by filing an election petition under Section 176 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and it is hoped that the petition filed by respondent No. 5 will be disposed of by the Election Tribunal as early as possible but latest within 3 months after the service of notice.” In face of the above said liberty granted by this Court, respondent No.1 filed instant Election Petition along with the first interim dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure P2) with the therefore, prayed that the petitioner may kindly be declared as winning candidate for the post of Sarpanch of Lakha Tehsil & Block Israna District Panipat and it is further prayed that the certificate of winning 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fraudu 17. 16.05.2024 (Annexure P4) to the Election Petition. The petitioner also filed reply dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure No.1 for recounting of votes. Court below vide order dated 16.05.2024; and additional issue No.2A was framed on 05.07.2024: for? OPP candidate issued by the Returning respondents no.7 8 may kindly set fraudulently in by the respondent no.1 respondents no.7& 8, in the interest of justice may kindly be passed. It is therefore, further pra of election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu i.e. voting Machine, voter list, voter tick mark record may kindly summoned recounted for deciding the present petition on merit, in the interest of justice.” The petitioner had filed written statement dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P4) to the Election Petition. The petitioner also filed reply dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P5) to the application of respondent No.1 for recounting of votes. Following issues were framed by learned ow vide order dated 16.05.2024; and additional issue No.2A was framed on 05.07.2024:- "1. Whether petitioner is entitled to declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in its present form? OPR 2A. Whether the election documents and EVMs were forged and tampered with after declaration of re (Respondent no.1) 3. Whether the petition of petitioner is time barred? OPR 4. Whether petitioner has concealed true and material facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and lo standi to file the present suit? OPR Returning Officer/ Election Officer i.e. respondents no.7 8 may kindly set-aside, which is obtained lently in by the respondent no.1 in collusion with & 8, in the interest of justice may kindly be passed. It is therefore, further prayed that the original record of election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Lakhu i.e. voting Machine, voter list, voter tick mark record may kindly summoned and votes may kindly be for deciding the present petition on merit, in the (Emphasis added) The petitioner had filed written statement dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P4) to the Election Petition. The petitioner also filed P5) to the application of respondent Following issues were framed by learned ow vide order dated 16.05.2024; and additional issue No.2A was "1. Whether petitioner is entitled to declaration, as prayed 2. Whether the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable 2A. Whether the election documents and EVMs were forged and tampered with after declaration of result? OPR 3. Whether the petition of petitioner is time barred? OPR 4. Whether petitioner has concealed true and material facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPR 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document file this petition? OPR 18. respondent No.1 also filed the first interim applicat dated 16.03.2024. learned Election Tribunal had dismissed the application of the respondent No.1 seeking recounting of votes 19. of the Election Petition respondent No.1 application dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P of the votes. The petitioner filed reply dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P13) to the said application 15), the said application of the respondent No.1 has been allowed. 20. fact that it is undisputed that election itself, that is 2.11.2022 who had already been respondent no.1 was declared elected petition, the prayer of the recounting of votes rejected by the following terms: 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file this petition? OPR 7. Relief." As pointed out above, along respondent No.1 also filed the first interim applicat dated 16.03.2024. Vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8), the learned Election Tribunal had dismissed the application of the respondent No.1 seeking recounting of votes. However, despite the above dismissal, d of the Election Petition respondent No.1 application dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P-12) once again, praying for of the votes. The petitioner filed reply dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P13) to the said application Vide the impugned order dated 22 15), the said application of the respondent No.1 has been allowed. The impugned order is unsustainable on account of the is undisputed that a recount had taken place on the date of itself, that is 2.11.2022, whereupon the had already been declared elected was reversed, and respondent no.1 was declared elected. Thereafter, the prayer of the Election petitioner/ recounting of votes vide first interim application dated 16.3.2024, rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure P following terms: - 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to s pointed out above, along with the Election Petition respondent No.1 also filed the first interim application for recounting, Vide order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P8), the learned Election Tribunal had dismissed the application of the respondent However, despite the above dismissal, during pendency of the Election Petition respondent No.1 again filed present/second once again, praying for recounting of the votes. The petitioner filed reply dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure P13) to the he impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P- 15), the said application of the respondent No.1 has been allowed. The impugned order is unsustainable on account of the a recount had taken place on the date of , whereupon the result of the petitioner declared elected was reversed, and instead, . Thereafter, in the present election Election petitioner/respondent no.1 for first interim application dated 16.3.2024, was Tribunal vide order dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure P-8) in the 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document facie satisfied on the basis of evidence that there are “Perusal of election petition filed applicant/petitioner shows that in the relief clause alongwith relief of declaring him as winning candidate, petitioner has also sought the further relief of sum record of election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Buana Lakhu i.e. voting machine, v tick mark and prayed for recounting of votes for deciding present petition on merit. By way of present application also, the petitioner is seeking relief of recounting the votes. Giving this present application, would amount to allowing the final relief as sought by present petitioner in the petition which could not be done at this stage. Moreover, in Uday Chand Vs Surat Singh and another 2009(10) SCC, following has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is relevant for deciding this application "it would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re requirements viz. (I) the election petition seek the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, an evidence adduced in support of the all must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperati are satisfied'. So for ordering recounting of votes, t facie satisfied on the basis of evidence that there are requirement of re- counting of votes for complete and effectual justice between the parties. Perusal of election petition filed by the present shows that in the relief clause alongwith relief of declaring him as winning candidate, petitioner has ught the further relief of summoning the original record of election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Lakhu i.e. voting machine, voter list, voter tick mark and prayed for recounting of votes for deciding the By way of present application also, the petitioner is seeking relief of recounting the votes. Giving this relief, by way of amount to allowing the final relief as sought by present petitioner in the petition which could Uday Chand Vs Surat Singh and , following has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is relevant for deciding this application "it would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic ction petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, an (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, So for ordering recounting of votes, the Court must be prima facie satisfied on the basis of evidence that there are counting of votes for complete and effectual justice between the parties. 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. 2.12.2024; whereupon present/2 summoning of polling officer in rebuttal evidence, was filed by the respondent no.1 present application judicata. 22. be set aside the re-counting of votes enshrined in (hereinafter referred to as " the Ld. Court 1994 is reproduced herein The present petition is at st examination-in-chief of witness had been done so, this is not a stage where recounting of votes could be ordered. Moreover, as discussed above, it is also main relief of petitioner to recount votes therefore, this relief could not be given to the petitioner at this stage for the reaso above. Therefore, this application of recounting of votes is dismissed.” Thereafter, matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence on 2.12.2024; whereupon present/2nd application for recount and summoning of polling officer in rebuttal evidence, was filed by the respondent no.1 on dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure P present application for recount is not maintainable Further, the impugned direction be set aside being patently illegal being without counting of votes the Ld. Tribunal has transgressed it jurisdiction as enshrined in Section 176 of the Haryana inafter referred to as "the Act") where the Ld. Court below. Relevant extract of Section 176 (4) (b) of the Act of 1994 is reproduced herein under: "(4)(b) If, in any case to which [clause (a) or clause (aa)] [Substituted by Haryana Act No. 17 of 2001 w.e.f. 1.5.2000.] does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of The present petition is at stage of evidence and only ss had been done so, this is not a stage where recounting of votes could be ordered. Moreover, as discussed above, it is also main relief of petitioner to recount votes therefore, this relief could not be given to the petitioner at this stage for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, this application of recounting of votes is matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence on application for recount and summoning of polling officer in rebuttal evidence, was filed by the on dated 2.12.2024 (Annexure P-12). Therefore, the is not maintainable, being barred by res direction for recount is liable to being without jurisdiction. In ordering has transgressed it jurisdiction as the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Act") whereby no such power is vested in Relevant extract of Section 176 (4) (b) of the Act of "(4)(b) If, in any case to which [clause (a) or clause (aa)] [Substituted by Haryana Act No. 17 of 2001 w.e.f. 1.5.2000.] does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the court shall after a tion of the votes recorded in favour of 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document favour of such candidate or candidates 23. can merely, upon scrutiny and computation of votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate having the largest number of valid votes as elected scrutinize the result, and declare the result direction has been cast upon the Deputy Commissioner/ Election Officer, Panipat to get the recounting of votes in booth no.69 under his supervision on 07.05.2025 which is per se illegal since no such power vests in the Ld. provision, that the Tribunal is and computation of the result to recount the votes especially since the Ld. adjudicate upon the questions of the validity of votes. Moreover, the entire election record has been summoned and is available before the Ld. Tribunal each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been duly elected : Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes is found to exist between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in the favour of such candidate or candidates elected by lot drawn in the presence of the judge in such manner as he may determine." Thus, as per the above provision, the learned Tribunal upon scrutiny and computation of votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate having the largest number of valid votes as elected. As per the statutory provisions, Ld the result, and declare the result; direction has been cast upon the Deputy Commissioner/ Election Officer, Panipat to get the recounting of votes in booth no.69 under his supervision on 07.05.2025 which is per se illegal since no such power vests in the Ld. Tribunal. It is clear from provision, that the Tribunal is only vested with the power of and computation of the result; and could not have directed any authority to recount the votes especially since the Ld. adjudicate upon the questions of the validity of votes. Moreover, the entire election record has been summoned and is available before the Tribunal to make such scrutinization upon leading of such evidence. each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes st between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in the favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, elected by lot drawn in the presence of the judge in such Thus, as per the above provision, the learned Tribunal upon scrutiny and computation of votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate having the largest number of valid per the statutory provisions, Ld. Court is required to ; whereas in the instant case a direction has been cast upon the Deputy Commissioner/ Election Officer, Panipat to get the recounting of votes in booth no.69 under his supervision on 07.05.2025 which is per se illegal since no such power a bare reading of the above only vested with the power of scrutinization and could not have directed any authority to recount the votes especially since the Ld. Tribunal is also required to adjudicate upon the questions of the validity of votes. Moreover, the entire election record has been summoned and is available before the to make such scrutinization upon leading of such evidence. 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document However, the Ld. Cour the impugned order. 24. unable to apprise this Court as to under which provision of law can the respondent No.1 keep seeking recounting or even seek first recount of the ballot; or under what provision of law can such a directio recount of the ballot. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that recount has been directed Tribunal had satisfied itself that for the proper adjudication of the matter, recount was necessar respondent No.1 that the entire evidence stands concluded and that issue-wise findings have already been given by learned Tribunal and trial stands concluded examination of the entire that recount was necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. 25. contrary to the record as prayer had been made by respondent No.1: further permission to recount the votes fro However, the Ld. Court has breached the statutory mandate while passing the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 has been unable to apprise this Court as to under which provision of law can the respondent No.1 keep seeking recounting or even seek first recount of the ballot; or under what provision of law can such a directio recount of the ballot. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that recount has been directed Tribunal had satisfied itself that for the proper adjudication of the matter, recount was necessary. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that the entire evidence stands concluded and that wise findings have already been given by learned Tribunal and trial stands concluded; whereupon, it was found by the learned Tribun examination of the entire leading and material and evidence of the that recount was necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. However, the said argument contrary to the record as vide the present prayer had been made by respondent No.1:- “Application for permission for summoning the witness no.9 (diet money of the said witness already deposited) in rebuttal evidence as per order of the Hon'ble Court dated 05.07.2024 passed by the predecessor court Sh. Prateek Jain ld. ACJ (S.D.) Panipat, which is kept pending by this Hon'ble Court and further permission to recount the votes fro witness no.9 as per list already submitted in court from EVM t has breached the statutory mandate while passing Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 has been unable to apprise this Court as to under which provision of law can the respondent No.1 keep seeking recounting or even seek first recount of the ballot; or under what provision of law can such a direction be issued for recount of the ballot. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that recount has been directed only after the learned Tribunal had satisfied itself that for the proper adjudication of the matter, by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that the entire evidence stands concluded and that wise findings have already been given by learned Tribunal and trial whereupon, it was found by the learned Tribunal upon leading and material and evidence of the case that recount was necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. the said argument is misconceived, and vide the present application (Annexure P12), - Application for permission for summoning the witness no.9 (diet money of the said witness already deposited) in rebuttal evidence as per order of the Hon'ble Court dated 05.07.2024 ed by the predecessor court Sh. Prateek Jain ld. ACJ (S.D.) Panipat, which is kept pending by this Hon'ble Court and further permission to recount the votes from brining record by as per list already submitted in court from EVM 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 26. concluded, in fact, even evidence is not yet concluded. findings on the most crucial Issue no.1 have not been given by the Tribunal. As respondent no.1 27. has held that recount is necessary for decision on issue No.1; and that ‘Prima Facie’ case case adverted of oral statement Officer), and PW8 Brij Pal ( record would reveal that the above recount of votes, does not stand scrutiny. 28. entire genus and shot by mobile phone in which entire basis for challenging the election of the petitioner is privately made by mobile. It was stated by PW8 evidence/statement (Annexure P the time of preparing the manual record, names of candid Machine and Ballet Unit machine for proper decision on merits of the case.” The above prayer makes clear that trial is not yet concluded, in fact, even evidence is not yet concluded. findings on the most crucial Issue no.1 have not been given by the As such, above contention of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1, is rejected. Further, in the impugned order the learned that recount is necessary for decision on issue No.1; and that ‘Prima Facie’ case has been made out for recount. ed to by the ld. Tribunal is stated statements/testimonies of PW7 Pankaj Patidar (Assistant Returning Officer), and PW8 Brij Pal (Presiding Officer, Booth record would reveal that the above-cited ostensible ground for directing recount of votes, does not stand scrutiny. Before proceeding, it may us of the present dispute stems from shot by Presiding Officer, Brijpal (PW8) from his personal phone in which certain irregularities were entire basis for challenging the election of the petitioner is privately made by Presiding Officer, Brijpal (PW8) from his personal It was stated by PW8 Brij Pal/ Presiding Officer, Booth no.69 in his evidence/statement (Annexure P-11) before the learned Tribunal that the time of preparing the manual record, names of candid let Unit machine for proper decision on above prayer makes clear that trial is not yet concluded, in fact, even evidence is not yet concluded. Admittedly, findings on the most crucial Issue no.1 have not been given by the ld. contention of the learned Senior Counsel for Further, in the impugned order the learned Tribunal that recount is necessary for decision on issue No.1; and that a for recount. The said ‘prima facie’ d to be made out on the basis of PW7 Pankaj Patidar (Assistant Returning Officer, Booth No.69). However, the cited ostensible ground for directing Before proceeding, it may first be pointed out that the of the present dispute stems from a video privately created Presiding Officer, Brijpal (PW8) from his personal private irregularities were allegedly recorded. The entire basis for challenging the election of the petitioner is this video Brijpal (PW8) from his personal Brij Pal/ Presiding Officer, Booth no.69 in his before the learned Tribunal that at the time of preparing the manual record, names of candidates were not 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document written as per the ballot number and had been interchanged, and that had realised this mistake Election Rules/Handbook no mobile phone there is complete P-15/at page referred to the statements of petitioner, to the effect that allowed. However, in flagrant violation of the above said Rule Pal/ Presiding Officer, Booth no.69 admitted to making a video video of 02.11.2022, despite the fact that permitting PW8 to keep the said video with himself phone/pen drive were a private document evidence (Annexure P on which the mobile in 2023 has also admitted the above facts. question was not given the above facts, it to be relied upon by the which is the very foundation of the dispute at hand written as per the ballot number and had been interchanged, and that had realised this mistake on checking the video. Election Rules/Handbook no mobile phone there is complete ban on videography. In the impugned order (Annexure page 213 of the paper book), the learned Tribunal has duly referred to the statements of RW3 and RW4 to the effect that in compliance of However, in flagrant violation of the above said Rule Pal/ Presiding Officer, Booth no.69 in his statement (Annexure P making a video. More importantly, video of 02.11.2022, was not deposited in Election Revival/Control Room despite the fact that there was no order of the Returning Officer permitting PW8 to keep the said video with himself phone/pen drive were a private document. (Annexure P-11), that he had not brought the said mobile phone on which the alleged video was shot, and that he had mobile in 2023. PW7 Pankaj Patidar (RO) in his statement (Annexure admitted the above facts. PW7 has admitted that the video in question was not given to anyone from November 2022 to 2024 the above facts, it would appear that the authenticity of the video sought to be relied upon by the election petitioner in seeking recount of votes the very foundation of the dispute at hand written as per the ballot number and had been interchanged, and that he on checking the video. First and foremost, as per Election Rules/Handbook no mobile phone is allowed in the booth and In the impugned order (Annexure the learned Tribunal has duly RW4/ Election Agents of the in compliance of the said rule, no mobile was However, in flagrant violation of the above said Rule, PW8 Brij in his statement (Annexure P-11) has importantly, PW8 has admitted that the deposited in Election Revival/Control Room there was no order of the Returning Officer permitting PW8 to keep the said video with himself; and that the mobile PW8 has further stated in his he had not brought the said mobile phone video was shot, and that he had further sold the said PW7 Pankaj Patidar (RO) in his statement (Annexure P-10), PW7 has admitted that the video in to anyone from November 2022 to 2024-25. From that the authenticity of the video sought election petitioner in seeking recount of votes, the very foundation of the dispute at hand, is not established. 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 29. sought to be produced before the learned Tribunal by way of pen drive (Ex.PW8/A). Tribunal, in the impugned order, has categorically recorded that the said video (pen drive) (Ex.PW8/A) was inadmissible in evidence, as it had not been proved in accordance with law. been given by the lear order that: - Despite the above facts, the sought to be produced before the learned Tribunal by way of pen drive However, keeping the above factors in mind Tribunal, in the impugned order, has categorically recorded that the said video (pen drive) (Ex.PW8/A) was inadmissible in evidence, as it had not been proved in accordance with law. In this regard, a positive finding has been given by the learned Election Tribunal in Para 43 of the impugned “43. In the present case, petitioner has pleaded material fact stating irregularity in the counting of votes. It is the case of petitioner that initially Bri Presiding Officer of Booth No. while recording the votes from EVM to the Form 19 in as much as the votes polled in favour of petitioner has been recorded in the name of respondent no.1 and the votes polled in favour of respondent no.1 have been recorded in favour of Mahavir. Petitioner has examined Brijpal as PW8 and Pankaj Patidar as PW to show the alleged irregularity.No doubt, the pen containing the alleged video recording of counting has not been, proved as per law and is therefore inadmissible in law, but the oral Pankaj and PW8 Brijpal is sufficient to make out a prima-facie case in favour of petitioner the stand of Petitioner had taken a slight change from his pleadings to the extent that act of initial recording of votes by PW8 Brijpal has been termed as 'mistake', though in the petition, the act has been termed as Despite the above facts, the said video recording was sought to be produced before the learned Tribunal by way of pen drive keeping the above factors in mind the learned Tribunal, in the impugned order, has categorically recorded that the said video (pen drive) (Ex.PW8/A) was inadmissible in evidence, as it had not In this regard, a positive finding has ned Election Tribunal in Para 43 of the impugned In the present case, petitioner has pleaded material fact stating irregularity in the counting of votes. It is the case of petitioner that initially Brijpal, Presiding Officer of Booth No.69, has committed error while recording the votes from EVM to the Form 19 in as much as the votes polled in favour of petitioner has been recorded in the name of respondent no.1 and the votes polled in favour of respondent no.1 have been of Mahavir. Petitioner has examined Brijpal as PW8 and Pankaj Patidar as PW to show the No doubt, the pen-drive Ex.PW8/A containing the alleged video recording of counting has not been, proved as per law and is therefore in law, but the oral testimony of PW7 Pankaj and PW8 Brijpal is sufficient to make out a facie case in favour of petitioner. Without doubt, the stand of Petitioner had taken a slight change from his pleadings to the extent that act of initial recording of votes by PW8 Brijpal has been termed as 'mistake', though in the petition, the act has been termed as 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document illegal and the result of hijacking of electoral process by respondent no.1. In the considered opinion of the court, the material fact was wrong recording of votes and not the reason for the same. The argument that PW7 Pankaj and PW8 Brijpal were in collusion with petitioner is not sustainable as in that case respondent no.1 would not have been declared winner initially. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that petitioner has made out a prima facie case for recount of votes in booth no.69. I am prima facie satisfied that order for recount of votes is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties. 44. In view of the above discussion and on the basis of my findings issue no.2 to 6, Respondent No.8 Deputy Commissioner/ Election Officer, Panipat is directed to get the recounting of votes in booth no.69 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Buana under his supervision on 07.05.2025. It is made clear here that the candidates would be entitled to take one representative along with them. The Worthy DC, Panipat is directed to notify the candidates about the time and place of recounting. videographed. Report containing the result of recounting in booth no.69 is awaited for 09.05.2025 for decision on issue no.1. Copy of this order be sent to Worthy Deputy Commissioner, Panipat for requisite action as per law.” t of hijacking of electoral process by respondent no.1. In the considered opinion of the court, the material fact was wrong recording of votes and not the reason for the same. The argument that PW7 Pankaj and PW8 Brijpal were in collusion with s not sustainable as in that case respondent no.1 would not have been declared winner initially. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that petitioner has made out a prima facie case for recount of votes in booth no.69. I am prima facie satisfied that order for recount of votes is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between In view of the above discussion and on the basis of my findings issue no.2 to 6, Respondent No.8 Deputy Officer, Panipat is directed to get the recounting of votes in booth no.69 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Buana Lakhu under his supervision on 07.05.2025. It is made clear es would be entitled to take one ative along with them. The Worthy DC, Panipat is directed to notify the candidates about the time and place of recounting. The recounting be Report containing the result of recounting in booth no.69 is awaited for 09.05.2025 for no.1. Copy of this order be sent to Worthy Deputy Commissioner, Panipat for requisite (emphasis added) 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30. Petitioner) is that the was discovered after checking the videography whereas the videography has been done on a personal level in the mobile phone and the sanctity of the same is questionable. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 is apparently false rendering the entire version 31. the learned Tribunal case for recount impugned order reveals that no reasons have been assigned as to why, on what basis, or even on basis of which statement(s), a case for recount is made out. Nothing has been pinpointed as to on basis of which statement of which witnes indicates total non 32. and PW8 when with material discrepancies that would in no manner These discrepancies extract of deposition The entire case of Respondent No. 1 (Election Petitioner) is that the alleged error in prepa was discovered after checking the videography whereas the videography has been done on a personal level in the mobile phone and the sanctity of the same is questionable. Thus, the very initiation of the case pleaded by ent No. 1 is apparently false rendering the entire version As regards the oral testimony of PW7 and PW8 the learned Tribunal has opined to be sufficient to make out a prima facie case for recount, the same is also liable to be impugned order reveals that no reasons have been assigned as to why, on what basis, or even on basis of which statement(s), a case for recount is Nothing has been pinpointed as to on basis of which statement of which witness recount was necessitated. The impugned order therefore indicates total non-application of mind. To the contrary, a perusal of when scrutinized wholistically reveal that the same are riddled with material discrepancies that would in no manner These discrepancies have been overlooked and ignored extract of deposition PW 7 Pankaj (Annexure P "Question: Whether any agent or candidate gave any written application for recounting after the result which you had prepared vide Ex PW 7/ E Form No. Answer: I was not given any written application for recounting. However, as soon as I reached SD Vidya Mandir the presiding officer of booth no. 69 Sh Brij pal ji gave a entire case of Respondent No. 1 (Election in preparation of the election result was discovered after checking the videography whereas the videography has been done on a personal level in the mobile phone and the sanctity of initiation of the case pleaded by ent No. 1 is apparently false rendering the entire version as false. regards the oral testimony of PW7 and PW8 which sufficient to make out a prima facie , the same is also liable to be rejected. Firstly, the impugned order reveals that no reasons have been assigned as to why, on what basis, or even on basis of which statement(s), a case for recount is Nothing has been pinpointed as to on basis of which statement The impugned order therefore the contrary, a perusal of the depositions of PW7 reveal that the same are riddled with material discrepancies that would in no manner justify recounting. have been overlooked and ignored. The relevant (Annexure P-10), is as follows: Whether any agent or candidate gave any written application for recounting after the result which you had prepared vide Ex PW 7/ E Form No. 19? Answer: I was not given any written application for recounting. However, as soon as I reached SD Vidya Mandir he presiding officer of booth no. 69 Sh Brij pal ji gave a 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document form no. 19 and after agreeing with other PO I had declared 33. events as set out by respondent no.1. that "In view of the ruckus (hungama) Brijpal PO Booth No. 69 had taken this decision himself" once the election process is over and result is declared and documents are placed in sealed covers, there was no occasion for any such mistake to have been ‘discovered had deposed regarding the se polling booth itself, therefore the result of the election could not have written application in which he appraised regarding mistake in performa no. 19. Question:Whether is correct that on non receipt of written application or objection on Ex Pw 7 / E you had handed over certificate on form no. 21 - B after declaring Sh Kuldeep Singh as winning Sarpanch on booth no. 65 itself under signature and in your handwriting? Answer: In the village at the pooling booth I had not received any written application or complaint therefore after compiling form no. 19 and after agreeing with other PO I had declared Kuldeep Singh Ji as winner in performa no. 21 Question: Whether it is correct that after declaration of Sarpanch and after issuance of Ex PW7/E, all election record and EVM were packed in different different packets and sealed by the all the PO? Answer: Yes it is correct that Ballot unit and Control Unit and all documents as per the rules of the election were deposited in election office, all the records were sealed in the village." A perusal of the above falsifies the entire version of as set out by respondent no.1. In fact, view of the ruckus (hungama) Brijpal PO Booth No. 69 had taken decision himself" with respect to checking of the result. Howev once the election process is over and result is declared and documents are placed in sealed covers, there was no occasion for any such mistake to discovered’ in the first place, much less correct had deposed regarding the sealing of the election documents at the polling booth itself, therefore the result of the election could not have written application in which he appraised regarding mistake Whether is correct that on non receipt of written application or objection on Ex Pw 7 / E you had handed over B after declaring Sh Kuldeep Singh as winning Sarpanch on booth no. 65 itself under signature In the village at the pooling booth I had not received any written application or complaint therefore after compiling form no. 19 and after agreeing with other PO I had declared Kuldeep Singh Ji as winner in performa no. 21 - B. r it is correct that after declaration of Sarpanch and after issuance of Ex PW7/E, all election record and EVM were packed in different different packets and Yes it is correct that Ballot unit and Control Unit and uments as per the rules of the election were deposited in election office, all the records were sealed in the village." A perusal of the above falsifies the entire version of In fact, PW 7 had further deposed view of the ruckus (hungama) Brijpal PO Booth No. 69 had taken o checking of the result. However, once the election process is over and result is declared and documents are placed in sealed covers, there was no occasion for any such mistake to much less correct it. PW 8 Brijpal aling of the election documents at the polling booth itself, therefore the result of the election could not have 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been changed, or mistake could not have been discovered except without opening the seals which cannot be done. were sealed on the polling booth itself, how was the mistake discovered and how could such without opening the election documents in the sealed cover destroying the sacrosanct seal therefore appear that without sealing and subsequently changed rendering the entire process invalid. A vital response 34. that ruckus was caused in the village itself demanding chang whereas it has been stated that the demand for change was made after coming to SD Vidya Mandir Control Room. shown the PO Diary and election records had stated that " documents that have been shown to me in the PO along with attached documents are not available" and gaps exist in the entire story which go to the root of the validity of the votes itself. But 35. testimonies of PW 7 and PW 8 since PW 7 had stated that he had no changed, or mistake could not have been discovered except without opening the seals which cannot be done. In ere sealed on the polling booth itself, how was the mistake discovered and how could such ‘mistake’ in Form No. 19 and 15 have been corrected without opening the election documents in the sealed cover destroying the sacrosanct seal of the election documents therefore appear that election record was tampered with or placed without sealing and subsequently changed rendering the entire process invalid. A vital response of PW8 to this effect is "Q. Whether Ex.PW7/G has b opening the record and seal of sealed covers? Ans: This I do not remember." Moreover, the entire case of the Election Petitioner ruckus was caused in the village itself demanding chang whereas it has been stated that the demand for change was made after coming to SD Vidya Mandir Control Room. shown the PO Diary and election records had stated that " documents that have been shown to me in the PO along with attached documents are not available" and gaps exist in the entire story which go to the root of the validity of the f. But these aspects have not been considered. Further, the material contradictions between the testimonies of PW 7 and PW 8 could not have been overlooked especially since PW 7 had stated that he had not changed, or mistake could not have been discovered except without In case the election documents ere sealed on the polling booth itself, how was the mistake discovered; in Form No. 19 and 15 have been corrected without opening the election documents in the sealed cover - thereby election documents. It would election record was tampered with or placed without sealing and subsequently changed rendering the entire process to this effect is as follows: "Q. Whether Ex.PW7/G has been prepared again after opening the record and seal of sealed covers? Moreover, the entire case of the Election Petitioner is ruckus was caused in the village itself demanding change of result whereas it has been stated that the demand for change was made after coming to SD Vidya Mandir Control Room. Furthermore, PW 7 on being shown the PO Diary and election records had stated that "Those documents that have been shown to me in the PO Diary written by me along with attached documents are not available". Hence, material lapses and gaps exist in the entire story which go to the root of the validity of the these aspects have not been considered. material contradictions between the have been overlooked especially t seen the video of counting; 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document whereas PW 8 has deposed that such video was sent to PW 7 relevant extract 36. statements made by PW7 and PW8 follows: - Pg PW7 Pankaj Patidar (ARO) Objection to mode of proof, photocopies of documents exhibited – to be decided at time of arguments 126 No application for recounting given at the time of counting, application given to whereas PW 8 has deposed that such video was sent to PW 7 relevant extract of deposition of PW8 is reproduced herein “Q. Whether alleged video of Booth No.69 was shown to Pankaj Patidar who was the Incharge of Booth No.65? Ans: Yes. Because in the Control Room entire Israna Block of Panipat RO Sugar Mill M.D. whose name I do were given oral orders to all the Presiding Officers that all send their video to Presiding Officer of Booth No.65 Pankaj Patidar then we send this video to him. It is wrong that Pankaj Patidar has seen and check your video it is also wrong that Pankaj Patidar told you about your alleged error. It is also wrong that you in connivance with Mohit himself without any evidence prepared false Form Ex.PW7/G and by taking Pankaj Patidar in faith by wrong manner got prepared Ex.PW7/F from him and it is also wrong that Kuldeep Singh got 254 vote at Booth No.69 and Mohit got only 7 votes. It is also wrong that certificate Ex.PW7/J has been given to Mohit on the basis of wrong record by preparing it falsely." The many discrepancies in the made by PW7 and PW8 may be enumerated PW7 Pankaj Patidar (ARO) Pg PW8 Brijpal (RO Booth No.69) Objection to mode of proof, photocopies of documents exhibited to be decided at time of arguments Application for Recounting No application for recounting given at the time of counting, application given to 145 No written objection was received from Mohit at the time of counting whereas PW 8 has deposed that such video was sent to PW 7. The is reproduced herein under: Q. Whether alleged video of Booth No.69 was shown to Pankaj Patidar who was the Incharge of Booth No.65? Ans: Yes. Because in the Control Room entire Israna Block of Panipat RO Sugar Mill M.D. whose name I do not remember were given oral orders to all the Presiding Officers that all send their video to Presiding Officer of Booth No.65 Pankaj Patidar then we send this video to him. It is wrong that has seen and check your video it is also wrong hat Pankaj Patidar told you about your alleged error. It is also wrong that you in connivance with Mohit himself without any evidence prepared false Form Ex.PW7/G and by taking Pankaj Patidar in faith by wrong manner got prepared s also wrong that Kuldeep Singh got 254 vote at Booth No.69 and Mohit got only 7 votes. It is also wrong that certificate Ex.PW7/J has been given to Mohit on the basis of wrong record by preparing it falsely." discrepancies in the contradictory enumerated in tabular form as PW8 Brijpal (RO Booth No.69) Application for Recounting No written objection was received from Mohit at the time of counting 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PW8 after reaching SD Vidya Mandir 130 Decision for recounting was by Brijpal PW8 himself 136 No instructions for recounting were given 127 Ballot Unit and Control Unit and all documents were sealed in village 129 Prior to documents in SD Vidya Mandir, mistake was found and corrected document were deposited 130 Sealed documents were not opened 129 Some persons got on in the bus of polling officials to SD Vidya Mandir 136 Videography was checked PW8 after reaching SD Vidya Mandir Decision for recounting was taken by Brijpal PW8 himself No instructions for recounting were given Sealing of Election Documents Ballot Unit and Control Unit and all documents were sealed in village 146 Material was sealed in the village itself Prior to depositing documents in SD Vidya Mandir, mistake was found and corrected document were deposited 146 Do not remember whether Form No.15 and 19 were put in sealed cover Sealed documents were not opened 147 No order was given to check videography “Q. Whether Form No.15 and Form No.19 were put in envelop by putting them in sealed cover? Ans: This I do not remember.” “Q. Whether Ex.PW7/G has been prepared again after opening the record and seal of sealed covers? Ans: This I do not remember.” 149 “Q. Whether on reaching the Control Room you have compared the alleged Video with the EVM Control Room? Ans: No” Some persons got on in the bus of polling officials to SD Vidya Mandir Videography checking by PW7 and Others Videography was not checked 143 Only oral orders for recording videography 147 Videography was shown to PW7 Sealing of Election Documents Material was sealed in the village itself Do not remember whether Form No.15 and 19 were put in sealed cover No order was given to check videography “Q. Whether Form No.15 and Form No.19 were put in envelop by putting them in sealed cover? Ans: This I do not remember.” “Q. Whether Ex.PW7/G has been prepared again after opening the record and seal of sealed covers? Ans: This I do not remember.” “Q. Whether on reaching the Control Room you have compared the alleged Video with the EVM Control Room? Ans: No” Videography checking by PW7 and Others Only oral orders for recording videography Videography was shown to PW7 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37. numerous material discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 7 and PW 8 Yet, the said statements recounting. 38. basis for the sacrosanct. However, learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate this aspect of the matter. Authenticity of the pen drive containing the alleged video (Ex.PW8/A) placed on record by Brijpal, has not been established. validity of vot election documents itself were tampered with, there could not have been any order for recounting of the votes learned Tribunal of the paper book), no.2A “Whether the election documents and EVM tampered with after declaration of result? OPR (Respondent no.1 learned Tribunal has held that “ his cross-examination that he along with his father had gone to the Control Room in the bus. However, the fact that petitioner and his father had went into the bus meant for transporting the officials to the Control Room does not by itself learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the A bare perusal of the above reveals that material discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 7 and PW 8 Yet, the said statements have been made the basis for the order of Furthermore, as already mentioned above, the recount, which is the video produced by PW8, is not sacrosanct. However, learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate spect of the matter. Authenticity of the pen drive containing the alleged video (Ex.PW8/A) placed on record by Brijpal, has not been . It is pertinent to mention that the validity of votes has not been thoroughly ex election documents itself were tampered with, there could not have been any order for recounting of the votes. In this regard, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of relevant Issue no.2A r book), makes interesting reading. Whether the election documents and EVM mpered with after declaration of result? OPR (Respondent no.1 learned Tribunal has held that “No doubt, petitioner Mohit has examination that he along with his father had gone to the Control Room in the bus. However, the fact that petitioner and his father had went into the bus meant for transporting the officials to the Control Room does not by itself prove that the EVM were tampered with.” learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the bare perusal of the above reveals that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 7 and PW 8. have been made the basis for the order of as already mentioned above, the very which is the video produced by PW8, is not sacrosanct. However, learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate spect of the matter. Authenticity of the pen drive containing the alleged video (Ex.PW8/A) placed on record by Brijpal, has not been It is pertinent to mention that the Issue no. 2A regarding the not been thoroughly examined and, in case, the election documents itself were tampered with, there could not have been In this regard, the finding of the in respect of relevant Issue no.2A (at pages 219 and 220 makes interesting reading. In respect of the Issue Whether the election documents and EVMs were forged and mpered with after declaration of result? OPR (Respondent no.1)”, the No doubt, petitioner Mohit has deposed in examination that he along with his father had gone to the Control Room in the bus. However, the fact that petitioner and his father had went into the bus meant for transporting the officials to the Control e that the EVM were tampered with.” The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the entire controversy in the 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document instant case rests upon the discovery of the alleged error in the election result which is alleged to have been found s Officer of Booth No. 69 in the absence of any application for recounting. The testimony of PW 7 and PW 8 clearly was not sealed on the polling booths and brought loosely to the control room because of which possibi 39. relief with respect to recounting of votes has been pleaded in the election petition by Respondent No. 1 (Election Petitioner) as a final relief trite in law that final relief cannot be Moreover, an application for recounting of votes was moved by Respondent No. 1 dated 05.07.2024. Once the application has been application could not have been made again at a subsequent stage. 40. ordered in a mechanical manner. cases where a strong case is made out application of mind. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009) 10 SCC 170, instant case rests upon the discovery of the alleged error in the election result which is alleged to have been found s Officer of Booth No. 69 in the absence of any application for recounting. The testimony of PW 7 and PW 8 clearly shows was not sealed on the polling booths and brought loosely to the control because of which possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. Last but not the least, the relief with respect to recounting of votes has been pleaded in the election petition by Respondent No. 1 (Election Petitioner) as a final relief trite in law that final relief cannot be granted in the form of interim. Moreover, an application for recounting of votes was moved by Respondent No. 1/ Election Petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2024. Once the application has been application could not have been made again at a subsequent stage. It is also to be appreciated that ordered in a mechanical manner. Recount can be resorted to only in rare cases where a strong case is made out, after giving due reasons application of mind. In holding as above, I draw support from judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Udey Chand Vs. Surat Singh & Another” (2009) 10 SCC 170, wherein it is held as under: “9. Before adverting to the merits parties with reference to the statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re instant case rests upon the discovery of the alleged error in the election result which is alleged to have been found suo moto by the Presiding Officer of Booth No. 69 in the absence of any application for recounting. shows that some election record was not sealed on the polling booths and brought loosely to the control lity of tampering cannot be ruled out. Last but not the least, the Ld. Court has ignored that relief with respect to recounting of votes has been pleaded in the election petition by Respondent No. 1 (Election Petitioner) as a final relief. It is granted in the form of interim. Moreover, an application for recounting of votes was moved by Election Petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2024. Once the application has been dismissed, a similar application could not have been made again at a subsequent stage. It is also to be appreciated that Recount cannot be Recount can be resorted to only in rare after giving due reasons upon In holding as above, I draw support from judgment of “Udey Chand Vs. Surat Singh & Another” as under:- . Before adverting to the merits of the issue raised by the parties with reference to the statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the salutary principle laid down in the election law that since an order for inspection and re- 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document justice between the parti count of the ballot papers affects the se an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality the counting are made out. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements viz.: (i) the election petition seeking re must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregul counting are founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied XXX XXX XXX 17. It is no doubt true that the legislature in its wisdom has not incorporated in clause (b) the expression "on the holding of such inquiry" it appears in clause (a), but bearing in mind the importance and the sanctity of the secrecy of a ballot, in our considered opinion, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that a bald allegation of irregularity in the counting process would ipso facto warrant a re an interpretation of the provision, in our view, would not only tantamount to automatic conversion of a petition under Section 176(1) of the Act into an order for re count of the ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting are made out. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases. It would be trite to state that Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot count, two basic requirements viz.: (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual es, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. . It is no doubt true that the legislature in its wisdom has not incorporated in clause (b) the expression "on the holding of such inquiry" it appears in clause (a), but bearing in mind the importance and the sanctity of the secrecy of a ballot, in sidered opinion, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that a bald allegation of irregularity in the counting process would ipso facto warrant a re-count. Such an interpretation of the provision, in our view, would not only conversion of a petition under Section 176(1) of the Act into an order for re-counting, it 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document jurisdiction under the provision. would be destructive of the settled principle of secrecy of poll, as also violative of letter and spirit of Section 183 of the Act, which mandates every officer, age in connection with the recording or counting of votes, to maintain the secrecy of votes holding that a petition for re-count as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 176(4) of the Act must contain adeq statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies in support of his allegation supported by some contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in the counting. On this basic material, which affords the basis for the allegations in the petition and the response of the opposite party thereon, the Tribunal is required to record its prima facie satisfaction that in order to decide the issue raised in the petition and in order to do complete justice between the parties the "scrutiny and computation of the votes" recorded in favour of each candidate is necessary. The need to record reasons in support of the satisfaction can hardly be overemphasised because reasons are the soul of the order/judgment. There hold that though in an election petition under Section 176(4)(b) of the Act, it may not be necessary for the court to hold a regular enquiry as postulated under clause (a) of Section 176(4) of the Act but the court is obliged to apply its mind to the a material facts, disclosed in the petition, on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded, along with some contemporaneous evidence, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. An order for re-count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction under the provision.” would be destructive of the settled principle of secrecy of poll, as also violative of letter and spirit of Section 183 of the Act, which mandates every officer, agent, etc. who performs duty in connection with the recording or counting of votes, to maintain the secrecy of votes…We have no hesitation in count as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 176(4) of the Act must contain adequate statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies in support of his allegation(s) and it must also be supported by some contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in the counting. On this basic s the basis for the allegations in the petition and the response of the opposite party thereon, the Tribunal is required to record its prima facie satisfaction that in order to decide the issue raised in the petition and in order ween the parties the "scrutiny and computation of the votes" recorded in favour of each candidate is necessary. The need to record reasons in support of the satisfaction can hardly be overemphasised because reasons are the soul of the order/judgment. Therefore, we hold that though in an election petition seeking an order under Section 176(4)(b) of the Act, it may not be necessary for the court to hold a regular enquiry as postulated under clause (a) of Section 176(4) of the Act but the court is obliged to pply its mind to the a material facts, disclosed in the petition, on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded, along with some contemporaneous evidence, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition would not be a proper exercise of ” 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41. the Hon’ble material facts fact, the pleading 42. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doc Id # 2702643 for inspection of ballot papers is not to be made as a matter In the present case, contrary to the above mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are no specific statements material facts on the basis of which recount could have been ordered. In pleadings are vague and contradictory. Reliance may be placed upon Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar, (SC) : Law Fin Doc Id # 2702643 relevant part of which is as under: “13. Since the question involved in this appeal appertains to recount of votes, let us consider the law on this aspect has been laid down through various pronouncements of this Court, in the context of various legislations. 13.1 A Constitution Bench o KamilKidwai (supra), in the context of the 1962 Lok Sabha elections to the Barabanki Constituency, wherein the appellant before this Court had been declared elected, and the respondent who was one of the contestants in the election, was aggrieved and his grievance was heard and eventually allowed by the High Court, observed that an order for inspection of ballot papers is not to be made as a matter of course and it is only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions that the same can extract is :- "6. An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and In the present case, contrary to the above mandate of there are no specific statements and/or on the basis of which recount could have been ordered. In and contradictory. Reliance may be placed upon another judgment of the Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar, (SC) : Law Finder relevant part of which is as under:- 13. Since the question involved in this appeal appertains to recount of votes, let us consider the law on this aspect - as has been laid down through various pronouncements of this Court, in the context of various legislations. 13.1 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hussain in the context of the 1962 Lok Sabha elections to the Barabanki Constituency, wherein the appellant before this Court had been declared elected, and the respondent who was one of the contestants in the was aggrieved and his grievance was heard and eventually allowed by the High Court, observed that an order for inspection of ballot papers is not to be made as a matter of course and it is only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions that the same can be permitted. The relevant "6. An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Judge Bench of this Court while concerned with a dispute (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or t evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be g that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." 13.2 In Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355, Judge Bench of this Court while concerned with a dispute regarding the election for the post of President of Vannavalkudi Village Panchayat, Pudukkottal District in Tamil Nadu, which was governed by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules 1995, held : "16...this Court has consistently taken the view that recount of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re count of votes. Secrecy of considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355, a three- Judge Bench of this Court while concerned with a dispute regarding the election for the post of President of Vannavalkudi Village Panchayat, Pudukkottal District in Tamil Nadu, which was governed by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats "16...this Court has consistently taken the view that recount of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks re- count should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order re- count of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the court can resort to re circumstances to do justice between the parties." 13.3 Sarkaria J., writing for the Court in v. Jai Prakash Mishra, (1975) 4 SCC 822, scenarios when recount would be justified. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under: "6. The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where: (1) the election-petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) on the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) the court 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 betwe 13.4 In Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi, (1975) 4 SCC 417, wherein the subject matter of dispute was the election of the respondent therein from the '6 Constituency' of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and so, was obviously governed by the RPA, considered a number of precedents including Hussain KamilKidwai (supra), the Court observed : it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished terially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties." 13.3 Sarkaria J., writing for the Court in Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, (1975) 4 SCC 822,recorded three scenarios when recount would be justified. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under: "6. The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where: petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are (2) on the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a ground for believing that there has been a (3) the court 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." Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi, (1975) 4 SCC , wherein the subject matter of dispute was the election of the respondent therein from the '6-Kumarsain Assembly Constituency' of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and so, was obviously governed by the RPA, considered a number of KamilKidwai (supra), the Court 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "45. ... Since an order for a re upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, it should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. Although no cast-iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet from a beadroll of the decisions of this Court, two broad guidelines are discernible: that the court would be justified in ordering a re permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decid complete and effectual justice between the parties... 13.5. The law mandates that secrecy of the ballot should be maintained. In Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 82, the Court held: "10. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. We are of the view when there was no conte evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election "45. ... Since an order for a re-count touches upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, it should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. Although no iron rule of universal application can be or has laid down, yet from a beadroll of the decisions of this Court, two broad guidelines are discernible: that the court would be justified in ordering a re-count or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal 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...” 13.5. The law mandates that secrecy of the ballot should be Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh, , the Court held: "10. It is thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the completion of the counting there was any valid ground available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any kind were given in the said application. Not even a single instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the counting was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. We are of the view when there was no contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the election 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be 13.6. In Udey Chand v. Surat Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 170 Court while entertaining an appeal by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein the order of the Election Trib the votes cast in the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Badshahpur, in a petition filed under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, observed:- "12. The importance of maintenance of secrecy o ballot papers and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two bas (i) the election petition seeking re papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and petition. We have been taken through the pleadings in the election petition. We are satisfied that the grounds urged in the election petition do not justify for ordering recount and allowing inspection of the ballot papers. It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered y. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous ence that the recount can be ordered.” Udey Chand v. Surat Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 170, this Court while entertaining an appeal by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein the order of the Election Tribunal directing recount of the votes cast in the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Badshahpur, in a petition filed under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, "12. The importance of maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers and the circumstances under which that secrecy can be breached, has been considered by this Court in several cases. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit scrutiny of ballot count, two basic requirements viz.: (i) the election petition seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43. Sadhu Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Others (Punjab of which is as under: (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied."” Reliance may also be placed upon judgment of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2032823 of which is as under:- “10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that respondent No.1 has extensively reproduced the statements recorded in evidence of the parties to the lis. However, there is no consideration of the merits or de by respondent No.1. The impugned order does not even mention the grounds of challenge to the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. The very brief facts are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the impugned order, followed by the statements of Ravinder Singh (present respo Sadhu Singh (present petitioner) and Kamaljit Singh (present respondent No.5). Thereafter respondent No.1 proceeded to order the recount by holding as under : "After perusing the documents on record and after hearing both the parties. After perusing the above mentioned facts the petition filed by the petitioner is accepted. For recounting of votes/ballot papers casted in the Village Singpura for the post of Sarpanch the committee of the following officials has been constituted: 1) Sh. Puneet Bansal, Naib Tehsildar, Gharaun evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary, are be placed upon judgment of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2032823 relevant part 10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that respondent No.1 has extensively reproduced the statements recorded in evidence of the parties to the lis. However, there is no consideration of the merits or de-merits of these statements The impugned order does not even mention the grounds of challenge to the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. The very brief facts are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the impugned order, followed by the statements of Ravinder Singh (present respondent No.4), Sadhu Singh (present petitioner) and Kamaljit Singh (present respondent No.5). Thereafter respondent No.1 proceeded to order the recount by holding as under : "After perusing the documents on record and after hearing erusing the above mentioned facts the petition filed by the petitioner is accepted. For recounting of votes/ballot papers casted in the Village Singpura for the post of Sarpanch the committee of the following officials has Bansal, Naib Tehsildar, Gharaun 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44. Court in “Mohammad Islam Vs. Aas Mohammad & Others” CR 2024 decided on 30.04.2024, for an order of recount of votes cannot be derived from the 2) Executive Officer, Municipal Council Kharar The above committee under their supervision and in the presence of both the parties will conduct recounting of votes in the Court of undersigned and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar will assist the above committee but the date of recounting will be declared later." Reference may be made to another “Mohammad Islam Vs. Aas Mohammad & Others” CR 2024 decided on 30.04.2024, wherein it is held that: “16. Having viewed the impugned order in the light of statement of material facts on which petition has been based and the principles enumerated in the judicial precedents, it is held that learned Tribunal lost sight of the parameters to be applied, while ordering for recounting of the votes. Perusal of the impugned order would show that same was passed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The impugned order even does not indicate that any material much less the affidavits of the parties by way of t into account, before ordering recounting of votes. The impugned order does not indicate any was recorded by the learned Tribunal, before ordering the recount of votes. It does not provide that learned Tribu made any limited inquiry based on any material before passing the order. It is settled position of law that justification for an order of recount of votes cannot be derived from the hindsight and by result of recount of votes but from the material placed by an election-petitioner on the threshold for recount of the votes. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seeking recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy. Unless the affected candidate is able to substantiate by means of some evidence that a prima facie case of recounting of votes is made out, the learned Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should not order recount of votes. Page 35 of 36 2) Executive Officer, Municipal Council Kharar The above committee under their supervision and in the presence of both the parties will conduct recounting of votes in the Court of undersigned and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kharar will assist the above committee but the date of recounting will be declared later."” made to another judgment of this “Mohammad Islam Vs. Aas Mohammad & Others” CR-1482- herein it is held that: - 16. Having viewed the impugned order in the light of statement of material facts on which petition has been based and the principles enumerated in the judicial precedents, it is held that learned Tribunal lost sight of the parameters to be rdering for recounting of the votes. Perusal of the impugned order would show that same was passed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The impugned order even does not indicate that any material much less the affidavits of the parties by way of their evidence were taken into account, before ordering recounting of votes. The impugned order does not indicate any prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the learned Tribunal, before ordering the recount of votes. It does not provide that learned Tribunal made any limited inquiry based on any material before passing the order. It is settled position of law that justification for an order of recount of votes cannot be derived from the hindsight and by result of recount of votes but from the petitioner on the threshold for recount of the votes. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seeking recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the s sacrosanct in a democracy. Unless the affected candidate is able to substantiate by means of some case of recounting of votes is made out, the learned Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should not order recount of votes.” 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45. above, the 22.04.2025 (Annexure P directing recount of votes, is set aside. 46. 01.07.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the factual and legal position as noted the present petition is allowed. 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Election Tribunal, Panipat directing recount of votes, is set aside. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes factual and legal position as noted The impugned order dated 15) passed by the Election Tribunal, Panipat, Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 36 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document