- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20-11-95, Annexure 15 to the writ petition order dated 17-8-95 Annexure 11 and the order dated 17-8-95, Annexure 12 to the petition.
(2.) I have heard learned consels for the parties and perused the records. The election for the post of Pradhan Village Gadwar was held on 12-4-95 in which Jalaluddin was declared elected on 20-4-95 having secured highest votes being 608 and he assumed charge. An election petition was filed by respondent No. 8 Sugriv Singh who had secured 468 votes and another election petition was filed by respondent No. 4 Gprakh who had secured 564 votes. True copies of election petition are Annexures 1 and 2. The written state ments in these election petition are An nexure 3 and 4. In these election petition some issues were issued as to whether the counting had been done illegally and whether there should be fresh counting. The respondent No. 8 Sugriv Singh filed an ap plication on 8-8-95 praying that the issue should be decided as a preliminary issue. On 17-8-95 an order of recount was passed by the S. D. O. vide Annexure 9 to the petition. It is alleged in para 16 of the petition that after the order of recount was passed, the S. D. O. on the same day proceeded to recount the votes which was done in haste and as a result of the recount the petitioner's votes reduced to 424. In para 19 it is alleged that on 24-4-95 the total num ber of votes were polled to be 2438 whereas the votes alleged to have been recounted on 17-8-95, were shown to be 2553. It is alleged that this was because of tampering of ballot papers after declaration of the result. In para 20 of the petition, It is alleged that the number of invalid votes when the result was declared on 20-4-95 was 226, whereas after recount the number of invalid votes came to 512. It is alleged in para 21 that the Sub Divisional Officer on 17-8- 1995 declared the respondent No. 3 Sugriv Singh as elected Pradhan vide Annexure 11 to the petition. In para 23 it is alleged that no arguments were heard by the Sub Divisional Officer after recount and the Sub Divisional Officer proceeded with great haste as he was under influence and straight away declared the result in favour of Sugriv Singh. Copy of the order setting aside the election of the petitioner is Annexure 12 to the writ peti tion. Against order dated 17-8-95 the petitioner filed a revision which was dis missed by the District Judge by order dated 20-11 -95 and hence this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The law of recount is well settled by series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. In AIR 1975 SC 2117 Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and others. It was held that in view of the secrecy of the ballot recount should not be ordered as of course. The circumstances on which recount can be ordered, have been given in detail in this decision of the Supreme Court and I am not repeating the same. The Supreme Court has held inter- alia that the Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials before the court regarding the truth of the allegations made for recount. A full Bench of this Court in 1985 UPLBEC 317, Ram Adhar Singh v. D. J. and others has also taken the same view.
(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid I have examined the order of recount dated 17-8-95, which is Annexure 9 to the petition. I have closely perused the said order and in my opinion it does comply with the require ments which must be fulfilled to justify the order of recount as mentioned in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The said order dated 17-8-95 states that the Station Officer along with five or six constables sat at the counting table No. 19 and influenced the counting. About 150 votes were wrongly declared in valid. The election petitioner on the same day sent a complaint to the State Election Commission giving the details and the Zonal Magistrate also sent a complaint on the same date to the District Magistrate. In my opinion the report of the Zonal Magistrate that the police made il legal interference with the counting and the other material on record justify the order of recount and hence there is no illegality in the order dated 17-8-95.;