JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under sec. 226 of the Constitution by one Gangaran whose election to the office of Sarpanch was set aside by the Tribunal as a result of recount on the petition of two voters Jeevanram and Bhaguram.
(2.) ACCORDING to the counting made by the Returning Officer Gangaram polled 431 votes and Baluram polled 429 votes. It is not disputed that on account of a very narrow margin between the votes polled by the two respective candidates the Returning Officer scrutinised and counted the votes 4 times before declaring the result. In the election petition all that was alleged by the petitioners was that the counting was not proper. No particulars were at all given. Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 lays down that the petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. An objection was taken on behalf of Gangaram on the strength of various decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court that because no particulars have been given with regard to the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes the petitioners were not entitled to a recount. The Tribunal however overruled the objection on the ground that the election petition was filed by two voters and not by the defeated candidate. Rule 80 equally applies to a petitioner who is a defeated candidate and to one who is merely a voter who was not a defeated candidate was not required to give particulars then the law would be evaded by the defeated candidate by getting an election petition filed by one of his supporters. I am accordingly of the opinion that it is as essential for a petitioner who is not a defeated candidate to give particulars of the improper acceptance or rejection of votes as it is for a defeated candidate. As to what particulars are sufficient in case of an election petition challenging the election to the office of Sarpanch or Panch have been dealt with in Amar Singh vs. Munsif Magistrate Jodhpur (1 ). The principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sewak vs. H. K. Kidwai (2) and Dr. Jagjit Singh vs. Kartar Singh (3) are applicable to this case. I accordingly hold that a recount of the ballot papers by the Tribunal was not justified in this case. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition. .;