Iqbal Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) As a result of an election -petition filed under Sec. 13 -B and C of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, as applicable to the Sate of Haryana, the Petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of village Ghaghas by the prescribed authority vide his order dated 22nd February, 1979. This conclusion was recorded by the said Authority as a result of re -count of votes polled by the two adversaries. As is apparent from the said order dated 22nd December, 1979, the Respondent had agreed to the re -count of the votes when he made a statement to the following effect: I agree with the statement of Israil Petitioner. I have no objection for re -counting. Recounting may be done and the petition be decided on the basis of the recounting of votes. As indicated earlier, as a result of the re -count the Petitioner was declared elected he having secured 219 votes as against 215 secured by the other side. This order of the prescribed authority was, however, later challenged by the Respondent before the District Judge, Gurgaon, in an appeal under Sec. 13 -V of the above said Act. The District Judge set aside the order of the prescribed authority and remanded the case for decision afresh in the light of the observations made by him primarily on the ground that the material allegations made by the Respondent before him in the election -petition did not make out a case for re -counting of the votes.
(2.) The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was nothing in law against the agreed course adopted by the parties before the prescribed authority and a reference to a judgment of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Sukhadi Raj v/s. Ram Harsh : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 681 in that regard was negatived by the learned District Judge with the following observations: In the facts and circumstances of that case which have not been given in the short report, their Lordships must have been satisfied that re -counting was justified. This course of reasoning on the part of the learned District Judge to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court does not appear to be well -justified. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it has been mentioned that though at an earlier stage their Lordships had even indicated that the Petitioner in that case had failed to make out a case for the inspection of the ballot papers, yet in view of the agreement of both the parties of the recount of the votes and to pronounce the result of the election on the basis of that re -counting was not only approved but was resorted to. This is what has exactly been said by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above cited case: Both parties agree that all the disputed votes should be recounted and that the result of the election should be declared on the basis of such recounting. The re counting of undisputed vote done by the High Court under its order dated November 5, 1974 shall stand undisturbed. These undisputed votes and the votes secured by the respective candidates as a result of re -counting of disputed votes to be done under this order, shall both be taken into account for the purpose of determining as to which candidate has polled the largest number of votes. It has further been said that such a course adopted for the re -counting of the votes does not violate any of the provisions of the People Act, 1951, including Sec. 97 thereof,
(3.) In the light of the authority (supra) of the Supreme Court, I find that the appellate court whose order dated 7th March, 1980 is now impugned through this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in upsetting the order of the prescribed authority and remanding the case for decision afresh.;