- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10-5-2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Niwai District Tonk dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's (herein after 'the plaintiff') election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 wherein a challenge has been laid to the election of defendant Manohar (herein after 'the defendant') as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Chainpura Tehsil Niwai District Tonk.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge having considered the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the case set up by the plaintiff in his election petition that the 78 rejected votes included 50 votes cast in his favour could not be proved from the evidence on record and was even otherwise not supported the plaintiff's own testimony before the court. The learned Civil Judge has relied upon an admission of the petitioner himself that at the time of counting of votes all candidates/ agents were allowed to participate in the counting of votes and each invalid vote was rejected and separately kept after determining the reasons of rejection. The plaintiff also admitted that all rejected votes were counted in his presence. In this view of the matter the learned Civil Judge has come to a conclusion that entire foundation of plaintiff's case for laying a challenge to the election by way of election petition before the trial court was baseless. The trial court also noted that the petitioner did not file any written complaint under Rule 49 (6) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 which was indicative of entire foundation of election petition being a mere after thought. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order dated 10-5-2012, I am of the view that there is no material before this court to interfere in the exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Civil Judge. The impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any misdirection of law nor entails any manifest injustice. The plaintiff was not able to place any material of probative worth at the threshold before the trial court to warrant an order of recounting and the reason for this salutary rule is to preserve the secrecy of votes which is sacrosanct principle not to be casually deviated from on the mere askance of a defeated and quite obviously piqued candidate seeking to find solace in a perceived and imagined illegality. Reference can be had to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen Vs. KAM Mappillai Mohindeen and Others [(1989) 1 SCC 526, para 13] wherein it has been held that "the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material placed by an election petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima facie genuine need for it. The right of a defeated candidate to assail the validity of an election result and seek recounting of votes has to be subject to the basic principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy and hence unless the affected candidate is able to allege and substantiate in acceptable measure by means of evidence that a prima facie case of a high degree of probability existed for the recount of votes being ordered by the Election Tribunal in the interests of justice, a Tribunal or court should not order the recount of votes". I therefore find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.;