- (1.) HEARD Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Sri V.P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and learned standing counsel for State. The writ petitioner challenges the order of recount dated 20.11.2012 in an election petition, passed by Sub -Divisional Officer, Etawah, Siddarth Nagar under Section 12 -C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
(2.) THE brief facts as stated in the petition are that an election petition was filed by respondent no. 1, challenging the election of writ petitioner/Budhai as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bajra Bhari, Nyay Panchayat Kathela Sharki, Tehsil Etawah, Siddarth Nagar. It was alleged that election for the post of Pradhan was held on 14.10.2010; counting of votes took place on 28.10.2010; on account of mal -practices adopted by writ petitioner, bundles of ballot papers of both the writ petitioner and respondent no. 1 were mixed, which was protested by the husband of respondent no. 1 but to of no avail; at the time of counting at night, A.R.O. and R.O. used to come in and out of pandal, where counting was in progress; ballot papers were not shown; finally, after counting, both election petitioner and election respondent were allegedly shown to have secured 378 votes; on a protest made by husband of respondent no. 1, a written objection is alleged to have been submitted before the A.R.O/R.O., which is alleged to have been torn by them. It was also alleged that signatures of husband of respondent no. 1 were forcibly taken on a blank paper and, thereafter, petitioner was declared elected on the basis of a toss.
(3.) THE respondent no. 1 filed a written statement denying the aforesaid allegations. It was contended that there were no irregularities in counting of votes and in view of a tie of 378 votes, after obtaining consent of petitioner, the respondent no. 1 was declared elected. During the course of evidence, the election petitioner examined one Chandra Bhan and Nizamuddin as his witnesses and similarly, election respondent no. 1 examined himself and Umapati Lal as defence witnesses. The witnesses were also cross -examined.;