- (1.) The petitioner, who contested the Zila Panchayat Elections from Ward No. 10, Development Block -Barauli Ahir in District Agra, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 2/3 November 2015 passed by the Returning Officer for recount of the votes. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the result that was displayed on the website on 7 November 2015 declaring respondent No. 3 -Kushal as having been elected. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the District Election Officer should issue a certificate to the petitioner as a returned candidate from Ward No. 10.
(2.) The State Election Commission notified the elections for the members of the Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in four phases on 21 September 2015. The polling for Ward No. 10 was in the third phase on 18 October 2015. The petitioner submitted the nomination paper on 6 October 2015. It is alleged that the counting of votes was started on 1 November and was completed at 6.00 a.m on 2 November 2015. The petitioner obtained maximum number of votes but in the evening on 2 November 2015, the District Election Officer ordered a recount in regard to ballot boxes of certain polling centres. The petitioner protested and pointed out that a recount was not permissible. It is further alleged that even in the recount, the petitioner again obtained the maximum number of votes but subsequently another recount was ordered in which respondent No. 3 -Kushal was declared elected by a margin of two votes.
(3.) Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted: (i) that the Zila Panchayat elections are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 and the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1994; (ii) that Rules 47 to 50 deal with the procedure for counting of votes, Rule 54 deals with declaration of result, while Rule 56 deals with the report of result. In the absence of any provision for recount of votes, it was not permissible for the Returning Officer to order a recount; and (iii) that the petitioner has, therefore, to be declared elected and, accordingly, entitled to be issued a certificate by the Returning Officer in terms of Rule 56.;