Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has been unable to produce a notification of the Haryana Government in the Department of Panchayats declaring him a duly elected Panch in the Panchayat Elections held in Haryana in 2010. Mere possession of an Identity Card (Annexure P1) said to be issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Khol -cum -Special Executive Magistrate is not conclusive proof of being an elected Panch of Gram Panchayat, Village Manethi, Tehsil and District Rewari. Merely because the petitioner functioned as a Panch for 4/5 months will not give her a right to hold the post of Panch. It is also highly doubtful whether an election dispute would lie before the Civil Court in a suit while the Court is not acting as an Election Tribunal duly constituted to hear election disputes.
(2.) RECOUNTING is not a right as observed by this Court in CR No. 454 of 2014, Deepak Sharma v. Hardeep Kaur and others, decided on May 12, 2014 which reads as under: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that re -count is not to be ordered in a routine manner and the test of prejudice will have to be satisfied whether breach of rule has resulted in prejudice to the parties. He relies on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in Gurnam Bindra Singh vs. Kulwant Singh and others, : 2011(1) PLR 159 holding that in order to succeed for a re -count of votes on the ground of irregularities committed in the counting of votes there must be a written complaint made to the returning officer in the first opportunity and on the spot. In order to succeed in a claim for recount of votes the election petitioner is required to make categoric averments in the election petition and make out a prima facie case which can win the confidence of the Court. Re -count cannot be ordered on the ground of equity and natural justice. See Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs. Krishna Behari, : AIR 1970 SC 276 and Arun Kumar Bose vs. Mohd. Furkan Ansari, : AIR 1983 SC 1311. Mr. Jain submits that no written complaint was made on the spot before the returning officer and the complaint made later on was an afterthought. He then relies on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rakhi Kaur vs. Gurmail Kaur and others,, 2006(1) LAR 320 where the test of jurisdiction has been applied on account of breach of Rule 33 and Section 66. The Election Tribunal has to be prima facie satisfied on the material produced before him regarding the truth of allegations made for a re -count. In absence of such material this Court set aside the order of recounting of votes. In para. 7 Brother S.S. Saron, J. observed: - 7. The provisions of Rule 33(2) (c) is part of a procedural provision for the purpose of counting of votes after the elections. In respect of a procedural provision it has to be seen whether the violation is of substantive character or is merely procedural in nature. The procedural provisions are meant for ensuring a free and fair election which would include that the process of counting has been duly carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. However, violation of any and every procedural provision would not by itself entail an order for recount of votes. In such cases, it is to be examined and ascertained whether any prejudice has been caused to either of the parties. In a case of prejudice having been caused appropriate orders would be required to be passed to remedy the same including the recount of votes. If, however, no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom it is obvious that no interference is called for. In the matter of recount of votes a Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Singh v. Dalip Singh, : 1996(1) PLR 70 held that recount cannot be ordered as a matter of course and the same can only be ordered on material facts stated in the petition duly supported by contemporaneous evidence leading to making out a prima facie case for recount. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Kishan v. The Election Tribunal -cum -Sub Judge, Hissar and another, : 2000(1) I.L.R. (P & H) 137 indicated the right of a candidate to demand recount or scrutiny and computation of votes while challenging the validity of an election under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was held that recount cannot be ordered on mere asking and disclosure of prima facie case supported by definite averments, verified and supported by documents, if any, are a condition precedent for ordering recount. A detailed inquiry based on evidence though was held to be not necessary. The Full Bench placed reliance on several decision of the Supreme Court and the guide -lines laid down in Ram Sewak and others v. Hussain Kamal Kidwai, : AIR 1964 SC 1249. Besides, the guide -lines laid down in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, : AIR 1975 SC 2117 were quoted in the following terms: - (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount and not for purpose of fishing out materials. If all these circumstances enter into the mind of the Judge and he is satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled in a given case, the exercise of the discretion would undoubtedly be proper. In view of the above re -statement of law I find no cogent reason or cause to interfere in the impugned orders in supervisory revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) NO merit. Dismissed.;