SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Hardev Singh, who is the returned candidate, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.3.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby he has summoned the election records pertaining the election of the office of Sarpanch of village Mattar, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for the purpose of re-counting, after coming to the conclusion that the defeated candidate (respondent No. 1 herein) has prima facie made out a case for computation and scrutiny of votes in view of clause (b) of Section 176(4) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) I have heard for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order, passed by the Civil Judge. In this case, in the Panchayat election held on 3.4.2005, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the village by securing 406 votes, out of 892 valid votes polled. Respondent No. 1 had secured 399 votes in the said election and 87 votes were secured by respondent No. 2, another candidate. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 7 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 176(4)(b) of the Act alleging that he was wrongly declared defeated in the said election. At the time of counting, at least 25 votes polled in favour of respondent No. 1 were wrongly and illegally added in the account of the petitioner in collusion with the Retuning/Presiding Officer. Immediately, an application for conducting the enquiry and taking action was filed by respondent No. 1. On that application, the police, consisting of D.S.P. and other police officials, came at the spot. The Presiding Officer gave in writing that there were 12 rejected votes, which he had put in the sealed cover and after opening the seal of the said cover. It is alleged that those 12 votes, which were shown rejected and were put into the sealed cover of the rejected votes, were the valid votes in favour of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that all this was done by the Presiding Officer in collusion with the petitioner in order of declare him elected as Sarpanch of the village, though he had not secured the highest number of votes.
(3.) THE Civil Judge, while taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Presiding Officer did not put all the votes in the sealed envelope in the record of ballot papers and thereafter, he opened the sealed envelopes and put 12 votes showing the same as rejected votes. It has been found that the Presiding Officer gave the explanation that 12 rejected votes were left to be put in the sealed parcels of ballot papers, whereas total number of rejected votes as per Ex.P1 are 18, therefore, it was not explained as to under what circumstances part of the rejected votes i.e. 12 left to be put in the envelope. In view of these facts, it has been found that there is sufficient material and reasons, which make out case for computation and scrutiny of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate.;