Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. The election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jajalpur, Pargana -Azamnagar, Tehsil Aliganj, District - Etah alongwith general election for the said post across the State was held in the year 2010. As per the election schedule, polling took place on 9.11.2010 and counting was held on 14.11.2010. For the post of Gram Pradhan at Gram Panchayat Jajalpur, there were 10 candidates in the field including petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 10. The petitioner, returned elected, secured 224 votes while respondent No. 2 secured second largest votes, i.e., 171. Other candidates secured much lessor votes. The respondent No. 2 filed Election Petition No. 11 of 2011 challenging election of petitioner on the post of Gram Pradhan on various grounds, in brief, which are: (i) Electoral rolls contain seven names of dead persons. (ii) Votes in the name of dead persons were cast. (iii) There was booth capturing also at around 4.30 p.m. and unauthorized persons cast their votes. (iv) 20 votes were rejected during counting illegally i.e., 8 at booth No. 113 and 12 at booth No. 114, which has influenced result of election. (v) The Counting Officers prepared bundles of 50 votes in booth No. 114 but one bundle alongwith other, in its entirety, was included amongst the votes counted in favour of Returned Candidate and that is how election result has been influenced. (vi) Seals of certain ballot boxes were found broken in respect of booth Nos. 113 and 114.
(2.) THE Election Petition was contested by petitioner by filing written statement dated 27.6.2011. The election petitioner supported her case by getting four witnesses examined. Three of those witnesses were also cross -examined by petitioner but one Sanjay Mishra did not appear for cross -examination. In defence, petitioner, besides herself, got five witnesses deposed their statement before Election Tribunal, who were also cross -examined. The petitioner then filed application dated 7.8.2012 requesting Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal to summon Returning Officer alongwith his diary to prove as to what has actually happened before it. This application was rejected by Election Tribunal/Prescribed Authority vide order dated 19.9.2012. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal passed an order dated 30.10.2012 under section 12 -C(1) deciding election petition. It formulated 18 issues.
(3.) ISSUES No. 1 to 12 were decided in favour of election petitioner (respondent No. 2) while issues No. 13 to 18 were decided against petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the Election Petition) and that is how it accepted and allowed Election Petition. In the ultimate direction Election Tribunal has directed for recounting of votes since that was necessary for declaring result of validly elected candidate. He fixed 1.11.2012 for recounting.;