- (1.)With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.8.2013 passed by the Election Tribunal by which petitioner's prayer for framing additional issues has been rejected.
(2.)Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition against the petitioner and other contesting candidates in the matter of election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Khajri. Though Election Tribunal framed certain issues on 9.7.2013, the petitioner dis-satisfied, moved an application for framing additional issues as below:
"(a) Whether election petitioner had moved an application for recounting and assurance as given by respondents No. 6 & 7 before closing ballot box that vote would be recounted on 30.1.2010 at Sarangarh?

(b) Whether application for recounting was moved by election petitioner before the appropriate authority?

(c) Whether non-issuance of notice and not calling reply from arrayed Assistant Returning Officer would lead to dismissal of election petition?

(d) Whether Assistant Officer of polling booth No. 219, Presiding Officer and other employees counted the votes and its counters two times and found the counting correct?"

Thus the petitioner prayed that the aforesaid issues are required to be decided because the specific objection with regard to maintainability of the election petition has been raised in the written statement on account of non-joinder of a particular Assistant Returning Officer.

The Election Tribunal, however, rejected the application by impugned order, observing that these issues are implicitly involved in the issues which have already been framed.

(3.)Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis on which the Tribunal has rejected the application is, on the face of it, perverse. The three issues which have been framed earlier, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to include an issue with regard to maintainability of the election petition on account of non-joinder of a particular Assistant Returning Officer. He submits that as the particular Assistant Returning Officer was involved in the process of election, therefore, it was necessary party, particularly in view of specific allegation made in the election petition.