VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) BY way of present revision petition, challenge is to the order dated 8.8.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Hansi acting as Election Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') vide which an application moved by respondent No. 2-election petitioner under Section 176(4)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been allowed and learned Tribunal has been pleased to order the recount of votes. Respondent No. 2-election petitioner filed an election petition under Section 176 of the Act for setting aside the election of the petitioner-herein as Sarpanch of village Umra, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar which was held on 3.4.2005, and for declaring petitioner-herein to be disqualified for the purpose of election with a consequential relief that the election-petitioner be declared as duly elected Sarpanch of village Umra as largest number of valid votes were polled in his favour in the election held on 3.4.2005.
(2.) IN the application, it was pleaded that election to the post of Sarpanch was held on 3.4.2005 and immediately after polling, the counting was held in the premises of Govt. Senior Secondary School for Boys, Umra by the Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat) and the election petitioner was declared winner by one vote. The petitioner-respondent No1 was not satisfied with the counting of votes and therefore, he applied for recounting of votes which was held on the next day i.e. 4.4.2005 at 3:00 p.m. It was pleaded that on 4.4.2005 and at the time of recounting, many anti social elements as well as some Advocates were present inside the counting hall on behalf of the petitioner-herein and sensing foul play by these people, a complaint was made to the Returning Officer (Panchayat) but he has not taken any action in this regard. It was claimed that on 3.4.2005 after completion of counting of votes when the election petitioner was declared elected by one vote by the Assistant Returning Officer, the petitioner-herein and his supporters did not allow the Assistant Returning Officer to declare result of the counting and to issue the certificate to the election petitioner, They closed the gate from inside hall and opened the same only after the Assistant Returning Officer assured them that recounting shall be carried out on the next day. It was claimed that at the first time, election petitioner has secured 1451 votes as per the details given by the Assistant Returning Officer while petitioner-herein had secured 1450 votes. It was claimed that the concerned Assistant Returning Officer did not count about 50 valid votes in favour of the election petitioner and further included about 50 invalid votes in favour of petitioner-herein in the first counting as well as in the recounting of the votes.
(3.) IT was claimed that the conduct of Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat) was published in the various news papers on 4.4.2005 and in this way, prayer was made to scrutinize and compute the votes recorded in favour of each candidate and declare the candidate who is found to have secured largest number of valid votes in his favour to have been duly elected as provided under Section 176(4)(b) of the Act.;