- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. The validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, whereby he has ordered for recounting of the votes, has come to be challenged in the present writ petition in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE election to the office of Prad-han of Gaon Sabha, Aazon, Block Sujan- 5arh, Nyaya Panchayat Amau, District aunpur had taken place, on 12-4-1995, in which besides the petitioner Shoblvnath, respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Lalji, Basant Raj, Shiv Bahadur and Ajay Kumar were the contesting candidates. THE counting of the votes took place on 20-4-1995 in which Shobh Nath, petitioner was declared to have been elected as Pradhan having secured 168 votes. His nearest con testing rival candidate was Lalji respon dent No. 3, who polled 167 votes. Lalji respondent No. 3 filed an election petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Macchli Shahr, Jaunpur. THE present petitioner had filed a written statement. By the impugned order dated 23-10-1998, which is Annexure 4 to this writ petition, the Sub-Divisional Officer/prescribed Authority has directed that the recounting of the ballot papers shall take place in his presence on 8-11-1998. It is this order, which has come to be challenged before this court in the present petition. Sri VK. Shukla, appeared on be half of Lalji, election petitioner respon dent No. 3. He made a statement that since a pure question of law is involved in the present petition for determination by this court, he would not like to file any counter-affidavit and the petition be decided on merits on the basis of material available on record. A supplementary af fidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. Heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Coun sel for the petitioner and Sri YK. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent No, 3.
(3.) THE impugned order for recount ing of the votes passed by the Prescribed Authority has come to be challenged on the only ground that the election petitioner (respondent No. 3) has not filed any application taking specific plea for recount of the votes and that he had also not placed any material or evidence, which may justify recount of the votes. This sub mission has been repelled by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. Before examining the facts of the present case and the rival contentions of the parties, it would be proper to set out the position of law which has since been crystalised by a plethora of decisions of this court as well as the apex Court. Without burdening this judgment with a series of decisions, I would do better to make a passing reference to some to the decisions and to give elaborate observations in some decisions which lay down a well embedded legal position.;