TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri V. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitoner, Shri R.K. Chaubey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri V.S. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the contesting-respondent No. 4.
(2.) THE petitioner is the elected Pradhan. The respondent No. 4 filed an election petition which is being delayed at the instance of the petitioner. It is alleged that the matter is at the stage of cross-examination of the witness and that the petitioner had taken adjournment on 14 occasions and that there is a direction of the High Court to decide the election petition within a stipulated pe­riod, inspite of which, the prescribed authority is unable to decide the matter on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner. In the light of this sce­nario, the contesting-respondents filed an application for the recounting of the votes which was allowed by the impugned order dated 4.9.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, the Court finds that the order of recounting of the votes was passed basically on the ground that two and a half years had elapsed and the proceedings are not being brought to its logical end and therefore, the best method to conclude the proceedings was to recount the votes since there was only a difference of two votes between the elector and the defeated candidate. The learned Counsel for the contesting-respondents further submitted that dilatory tactics had been adopted by the petitioner in order to delay the disposal of the election petition.
(3.) HAVING perused the impugned order, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions in Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra and others, AIR 1975 SC 376; Chanda Singh v. Chaudhary Shiv Ram Verma and others, AIR 1975 SC 403 and in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, AIR 1975 SC 2117, has held that one of the basic prin­ciples for the recounting of the votes is that the Court must be prima facie satis­fied on the materials produced before the Court, that there exists a reason for the recounting of the votes. In the present case, the recounting of the votes has been directed on the mere asking, namely, that there is a delay in the disposal of the election petition and that the elected candidate, namely, the petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics.;