VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.9.2005 passed by the Election Tribunal which reads as under :- "In this petition counsel for both the parties have been heard. Counsel for the petitioner told that there was bungling in the counting of votes. Respondent No. 1 got 1271 votes and the petitioner got 1261 votes. In this way, petitioner lost the election with the margin of 10 votes. On perusal of form No. 9, it has come to notice that in this election 105 votes were rejected, which are large in number. Therefore, it is necessary to look into these votes. It has direct bearing on the result of the election whether these votes were rejected rightly or wrongly. Therefore, bundle of the rejected votes be summoned and case be decided accordingly."
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that recounting has been ordered by the Election Tribunal without referring to any material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that merely because out of 3566 votes, 105 votes were rejected, it was no ground for recounting. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 303, wherein it has been held as under :- "The requirement of laying foundation in the pleadings must also be considered having regard to the fact that the onus to prove the allegations was on the election petitioner. The degree of proof for issuing a direction of recounting of votes must be of a very high standard and is required to be discharged. [See Mahender Partap v. Krishan Pal and others, 2003(1) SCC 3390 : 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 96 (SC)]." Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pardaman Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 35 to contend that no recounting can be ordered on the vague plea without framing an issue. The contention of the learned counsel was that merely on an oral request and without taking any evidence, further without holding that it would in the interest of justice and to maintain the purity of election and further that it would not harm any body, the recounting was ordered. Therefore, in the present case, the authority had acted in totally arbitrary manner.
(3.) IT may be noticed that in pursuance to the pleadings of the parties, it was incumbent upon the Election Tribunal to frame issues and, thereafter, it was open to the Tribunal to allow the parties to lead evidence. However, it was not open to the Election Tribunal to look into the rejected votes merely because 105 votes were rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Radha Krishan v. The Election Tribunal-cum-Sub Judge Ist Class, Hisar and other, 1999(4) RCR(Civil) 79 (P&H) : 2001(1) CLJ 235.;