Summary
The Supreme Court restored a reasoned recount order supported by specific pleadings and witness evidence of counting irregularities. The Division Bench had reversed it without analysing that material. A prior written recount request to the Returning Officer was not a prerequisite to relief in an election petition. On the recount showing the challenger ahead by 95 valid votes, the Court set aside the returned candidate’s election and declared the challenger elected, leaving separate forgery proceedings open.
Issues
- Whether the supported recount order could be reversed without addressing the pleadings and evidence.
- Whether failure to seek recount before the Returning Officer barred the election petition and what declaration followed the recount.
Provisions considered
- Section 140, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006The Court declared the returned candidate’s election invalid and the petitioner duly elected on receiving the highest valid-vote total after recount. (¶¶ 12, 14)
Held
- A recount requires specific material allegations, supporting evidence and judicial satisfaction, respecting ballot secrecy and avoiding a fishing inquiry. The Tribunal had analysed the relevant pleadings and witnesses, and the Division Bench could not displace its factual findings merely by citing precedent. (¶¶ 3, 8, 9, 11)
- A candidate’s failure to apply in writing for recount during counting does not preclude an election petition or a justified recount order after declaration of results. Sohan Lal governed, and the distinct circumstances of Mahender Pratap did not warrant rejecting this case. (¶ 10)
- The recount showed the petitioner had the highest total and 95 more valid votes than the returned candidate. Any defect in directing an administrative officer to declare results could be corrected by moulding relief under Section 140, rather than invalidating the recount. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- Alleged forgery of Tribunal records was a separate matter under Section 340 CrPC. It was outside the issues decided here and could be pursued independently on its merits. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal succeeds; Division Bench judgment set aside and Election Case 08/2016 allowed. Returned candidate’s election declared invalid and the appellant declared duly elected. Separate Section 340 proceedings left open. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.