Allahabad High Court
Sonmati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147953
Judgment Reserved on - 14.07.2025
Judgment Delivered on - 26.08.2025
Court No. - 75
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4417 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sonmati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sr. Advocate,Vivek Prasad Mathur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ganesh Kumar,Ghazanfar Abbas,Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.P. Mathur, leaned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Jai Babu Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh and Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. A joint statement has been made that since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavit, thus, the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
Facts
3. The case set out in the pleadings are that in the year 2021, the State of Uttar Pradesh notified elections of the Gram Pradhans of the various Gram Panchayat in the entire State. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the same reveals around the election of Gram Pradhan for Gram Panchayat, Bhaluha, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The election of the Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Bhaluha was held on 26.04.2021 and the counting of the votes was done on 02.05.2021. Post counting of the votes, the writ petitioner claims himself to have been elected as a Gram Pradhan while securing 672 votes as against the fifth respondent, Ms. Sangita who could secure only 668 votes out of total polled votes 1380.
4. A chart recapitulating boothwise votes casted in favour of the respected candidates and invalid votes is as under:
Sr. No.
Booth No.
Petitioner
(Sonmati)
(Sangita)
Invalid
Votes
Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
-
Total
5. The fifth respondent, Ms. Sangita wife of Shiv Prasad being a returned candidate preferred an election petition under Section 12 (C) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act 1974') before the Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar on 02.06.2021 which was registered as Case No.02523 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202117630202523) (Sangita vs Sonmati and others). Post filing of the election petition, notices were issued to the writ petitioner herein whose submitted her written statement on 21.07.2022. Thereafter on 04.08.2022 issues were framed. In support of the election petition, three witnesses were examined namely, Shiv Prasad, Ram Naresh and Smt. Sangita. The writ petitioner claims to have been filed a list of witnesses wherein as many as five witnesses were mentioned but according to the writ petitioner, the Prescribed Authority took the evidence only of three witnesses and rejected the application of the writ petitioner on 16.12.2022 for summoning of two of the official witnesses, the Counting Officer, Assistant Returning Officer and the Returning Officer. Writ petitioner further claims to have filed an evidence in the form of the affidavit along with the evidence of Ramdulare and Sadabriksh.
6. Thereafter on 27.01.2023, an order came to be passed by the Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar in Case No.02523 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202117630202523) (Sangita vs Sonmati and others) under Section 12(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1974 directing for recounting.
7. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner herein preferred the present writ petition seeking following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar in Case No.02523 of 2021(Computerized Case No.T202117630202523) (Sangita vs Sonmati and others) under Section 12(C) of the U.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1974.
(ii) Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner."
8. As per the records, after hearing the parties, judgment was reserved on 07.02.2023, however, in pursuance of the order dated 27.01.2023 of the Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar recounting was done, on 08.02.2023 declaring the result holding the fifth respondent, Sangita as winner by 24 votes. However, the writ petition came to be allowed on 09.02.2023 setting aside the order dated 27.01.2023 of the Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar directing for recounting.
9. For ready reference, relevant extract of the order dated 09.02.2023 passed in the present writ petition is being quoted hereinunder:
"7. In order to consider whether election petition has material particulars to make out a case of recounting, I have carefully perused contents of election petition, relevant portion has already been referred in preceding paragraph.
8. In the end of election petition, election petitioner has declared that contents of para nos. 1 to 7 were based on her personal knowledge, however, in her evidence by way of an affidavit (examination-in chief) in paragraph 3 she has declared that election petition was filed on basis of instructions given by her husband, therefore, declaration made in the election petition that averments made there in were based on her personal knowledge are contrary, therefore, the very basis of allegations made therein cannot be considered to be material particulars for the purpose of considering prayer for recounting.
9. There is other aspect of the case which requires consideration that petitioner i.e. returned candidate in paragraph 6 of written statement has specifically mentioned that on the request of election petitioner, recounting was done, ballot papers were recounted, but result remained the same and no further complaint was made by election petitioner. This averment was repeated in examination-in-chief as well as it was repeated in affidavit of husband of petitioner. However, in the entire impugned order, there is no whisper in this regard. Impugned judgment is based on alleged admission on behalf of representative of petitioner.
10. It is settled law that evidence has to be read in total and few sentence cannot be picked to suit in favour of either side. Case of the election petitioner has to stand on its own footing and as referred earlier, election petition is filed on the basis of instructions given by her husband, therefore, election petitioner has no personal knowledge about any irregularity. The entire basis of election petition becomes without any sufficient basis. Election Tribunal has considered the case in a way as it is conducting a roving inquiry which is impermissible and as held in Sajida (supra) that it is well settled that it is important to maintain secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and it should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations and before inspection is allowed.
11. The election petitioner has failed to make out a clear and specific case for recounting and further it was not supported by any adequate statement, material facts as well as there was no evidence in support of allegations.
12. In view of above discussions, impugned order dated 27.1.2023 suffers from illegality and is hereby set-aside and the writ petition is allowed."
10. The 5th respondent, Ms. Sangita assailed the order passed by this Court on 09.02.2023 in the present writ petition while filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 in which on 13.05.2024, the following orders were passed:
"1. The petitioner and respondent No.5 contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhaluha, Tehsil Bansi, Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The election was held on 26.04.2021 and the counting of votes was completed on 02.05.2021. Respondent No.5 was declared elected with 672 votes in her favour whereas the petitioner, who obtained 668 votes, remained second. It is not in dispute that 1380 votes were polled. In this manner, 40 votes were declared to be invalid. The petitioner filed an Election Petition and sought recounting of votes. The Prescribed Authority accepted the prayer for recounting but the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, vide the impugned judgment, has turned down the said order.
2. With the consent of learned Senior Counsel for the parties, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, Siddharthnagar is directed to re-count the votes in the presence of Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate (M.No.9999969513), who is hereby appointed as the Court Commissioner. The re-counting shall be videographed by the Court Commissioner. The result in a sealed cover, duly signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Court Commissioner as well as petitioner and respondent No.5 (without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and respondent No.5 to submit their respective objections), shall be produced before us on the next date of hearing. Learned Court Commissioner shall, in specific, videograph all the invalid declared votes.
3. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Court Commissioner, which shall include the fee, boarding and transportation charges. The petitioner shall pay the above-stated amount to the Court Commissioner within three weeks.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, Siddharthnagar is directed to contact the Court Commissioner and fix a date for recounting of votes after the parliamentary elections are over, i.e., in the first week of July, 2024.
5. The Advocate-on-Record representing the petitioner and respondent no. 5 shall provide the paperbook to the Court Commissioner within one week.
6. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, Siddharthnagar for information and necessary compliance.
7. Post the matter for hearing on 15.07.2024."
11. In compliance of the order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 (Sangita v. State of U.P. and others) by the Hon'ble Apex Court recounting was conducted by the Court Commissioner on 03.07.2024 and a report came to be submitted, dated 05.07.2024, on 10.07.2024 which reads as under:
"REPORT OF THE COURT COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.05.2024.
1. The undersigned was appointed as the Court Commissioner in the above matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.05.2024. In terms of the said order, recounting of votes cast in the Gram Panchayat Bhaluha, election for the post of the post of Gram Pradhan had to be carried out in the presence of the undersigned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, The aforesaid exercise had to be carried out in the first week of July.
2. In furtherance of the above order, the undersigned vide email dated 17.06.2024 informed the SDM, Tehsil Bansi Shri Kunal regarding above order and requested him to fix the date for the purpose of recounting. Upon receiving the email, the office of the SDM, Tehsil Bansi telcphonically contacted the undersigned, It was mutually agreed that the recounting shall be carried out on 3rd of July, 2024 at 1:00pm in the presence of the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. Accordingly, the office of the SDM sent notices to both the parties regarding fixing of time and date for such recounting. The undersigned had also requested that a videographer may be made available on that day to record the proceedings in terms of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 13.05.2024.
3. In furtherance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, the undersigned reached the Tehsil office, Bansi at 12:30 pm on the date fixed, i.e. 3rd of July, 2024. A local videographer was present at the venue to record the proceedings. The SDM had made all arrangements for the recounting. At 1:00 pm the representatives -respective advocates and husbands - of the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 were present at the office of the SDM for the purpose of recounting. The candidates themselves were not present, It was initially decided to await the arrival of the candidates; however, it soon became apparent that on account of ongoing heavy rains in the area, they would not be able to reach anytime soon, After speaking telephonically to the parties, it was requested by the respective representatives of both parties that the recounting could be started in their presence and the parties themselves would join the proceedings at the earliest when the rain relented. The recounting process then started at about 01:30 pm in the presence of the representatives of the candidates as mentioned above, the SDM and the undersigned, Both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 joined the recounting once the rain stopped, and were thereafter present till the end.
4. Sealed packets (4 in number) of the votes cast in the election for Gram Panchayat Bhaluha, Tehsil Bansi were kept ready and were opened booth-wise by the staff of the Tehsil in the presence of representatives of the parties as also the SDM and the undersigned. Each packet contained votes cast in the election for all the posts. The bundle of green ballot papers, which were for the post of Gran Pradhan, were taken out for the purpose of recounting, In each bundle, the votes were further categorised candidate wise, with a separate category being made of invalid votes. There were only two candidates for this post, being the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. The undersigned enquired when a vote would be held to be invalid, She was informed that it would be so in the following circumstances;
a) when the vote is blank;
b) when the mark has been put on both candidates;
c) when the mark as been put in the middle of the ballot making it unclear as to which candidate has been voted for;
d) When only a thumb impression has been put and not the mark.
A mark alone or a thumb impression accompanied by a mark is considered valid. It was informed that apart from the above, all other votes were considered valid. Some of the ballot papers, across both candidates, had a light but visible mark and therefore were considered valid.
5. The recounting was carried out booth-wise. The election symbol for the Petitioner was "Imli" and the election symbol of Respondent No.5 was "Anaj ausata hua kisan" (a farmer sifting grain). The recounting of votes commenced at about 01:30 pm, and was completed at around 05:00 pm. Each vote which was recounted was first shown towards the camera, then to both parties and the SDM and the undersigned. The recounting was carried out peacefully and there was no objection from either side regarding any vote at the time of recount. The invalid votes were also showm to both parties. After counting was done for each booth, the recounted votes were wrapped in white paper and (alongwith votes cast for other posts) put in a fresh envelope and tied with a string. After the recounting process was completed, the packets with all votes were resealed.
6. The votes were held to be invalid for the following reasons: -
Booth No.
Blank
Only thumb impression
Marks placed over symbols of both candidates (sometimes even a third mark in the middle of ballot paper)
Mark in the middle
Total
(6 prints in favour of Petitioner and 5in favour Respondent No.5)
(4 prints in favour of the Petitioner and 11 in favour of Respondent No.5)
7. In booth number 201, the 25 votes held invalid due to marks over names of both candidates, it appears that the marks have been put deliberately as they appear to be have put in a clear and precise manner. However, for what purpose or by whom they were put cannot be determined, The undersigned clicked pictures of the invalid votes cast in the election and the same are annexed along with this report as Annexure C-1 (Pg 8 to 17). Further, in booth number 201one of the votes recounted as valid in favour of Respondent No.5 seems to be invalid in the view of the undersigned, as it does not have a clear mark and seems more like an ink smudge. The reason for counting it as valid was that some edges of what could have been the mark can be determined. A copy of the said vote is being annexed hereto as Annexure C-2 (Pg 18).
8. The results of the recounting were then recorded in writing and signed by the parties, the SDM Shri Kunal, and the undersigned. The signed sheet was then placed in a sealed cover in terms of the order of this Hon'ble Court and handed over to the undersigned, The video recording of the recounting was first uploaded by the cameraman fron the camera onto his computer at his shop, and thereafter on to a pen drive which was handed over to the undersigned. The pen drive as aforesaid is being filed in this Hon'ble Court along with this report. A copy of the minutes of the meeting recorded by the SDM Shri Kunal and signed by the Petitioner, Respondent No.5 and the undersigned is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C-3 (Pg 19)."
12. A chart showing the result of the recounting so conducted on 03.07.2024 is quoted hereinunder:
"मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक- 13.05.2024 के अनुपालन में हुई पुनर्मतगणना दिनांक- 03.07.2024 में प्राप्त कुल मतों का विवरण
क्र०सं०
बूथ सं०
प्रत्याशी संगीता चुनाव चिन्ह-ईमली
प्रत्याशी सोनमती चुनाव चिन्ह-अनाज ओसता किसान
अवैध
योग
668 645 67 1380
Petitioner Respondent No. 5 Court Commissioner SDM, Bansi"
13. Thereafter the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 (Sangita v. State of U.P. and others) came up for further consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and on 15.07.2024, the following orders have been passed:
"1. In compliance of the order dated 13.05.2024, the learned Court Commissioner(s) have submitted their respective report(s) alongwith pen drive(s) in sealed cover(s). Re-counting result has been received in SLP ( C) No. 8150/2023 also in sealed cover.
2. Learned Court Commissioner in SLP (C) No. 5339/2023 has handed over the result of re-counting in sealed cover in the Court. The same be taken on record.
3. The Registry is directed to open the sealed covers and provide hard as well as soft copies of the reports as well as the re-counting results to the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The objections, if any, be filed within this week.
5. Post the matters for hearing on 22.07.2024."
14. On 22.07.2024, the Apex Court proceeded to pass the following orders:
"1. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties, on perusal of the report submitted by the learned Court Commissioner pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2024 and after going through the video-recording and the photographs placed on record by the learned Court Commissioner, we find that two issues are required to be determined, namely:
(i) Whether the seal used by a voter on two places of one ballot paper was one or two separate seals?
(ii) Whether both seals were used at the same time or different times?
2. In order to determine these questions, those ballot papers, which have been declared invalid during recounting in the presence of the learned Court Commissioner, ought to be examined by a Forensic Laboratory. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi (Siddharth Nagar) is directed to produce the original ballot papers in dispute on the next date of hearing."
15. Since a question arose with regard to the fact that 67 ballot papers were found to be invalid. Out of these, 25 ballot papers were those where there was double stamping / thumb impression etc. So the Central Forensic Science Laboratory('CFSL') was directed to submit the report and the following orders were passed on 12.08.2024:
"1. Learned Court Commissioner as well as learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties state that in all, there are 67 ballot papers found to be invalid. Out of these, 25 ballot papers are those where there is double stamping/thumb impression etc. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory ('CFSL') is requested to submit two separate reports i.e., one with respect to the 25 ballot papers and the other report for the remaining invalid ballot papers. These reports shall address the issues formulated by us in Para Nos. (1) and (ii) of our order dated 22.07.2024, a copy whereof be also supplied along with this order.
2. The 25 ballot papers with respect to which a separate report is required to be submitted have been identified and segregated by the learned Court Commissioner."
16. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory('CFSL') tendered its report dated 02.09.2024/30.08.2024 which is reads as under:
"Form No. CFSL-DFSS-DELHI-DOC-03
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY
(ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory)
Directorate of Forensic Science Services
Ministry of Home Affairs
Block No. IV, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003
Report No. CFSL/DELHI/1611/QD/555/24
Dated: 30-08-2024
"Examination Report"
To
The Registrar,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
Court No.4. New Delhi-110001
1. Reference: Verification of Seal Impressions in SLP (C) No. 5339/2023 in case Sangit Vs State of Ul.
2. Details of Forwarding Memo:
The case under reference was received in this office on 12-08-2024 vide letter No. Nil Dated 12-08-2024 for forensic examination and expert opinion.
3. Date of Commencement of Examination 13-08-2024.
4. Description of Articles/Exhibits:-
Questioned Documents:
Questioned documents comprising of 26 ballot papers containing Seal impressions now marked as XI to X58 (Details of the ballot papers and markings are as per Table 1 and fable 2 below.)
5. Laboratory Procedure, Experiment & Analysis: -
The documents of this case have been examined carefully with the help of available tools in this laboratory such as: VSC 8000, Stereo-zoom Microscope, lenses of different magnification etc. by applying the test of superimposition and examination/analysis of ink, arrived at the following opinion.
6. Result of Examination: -
1. On scientific examination and inter-se comparison of the seal impressions marked X1 to X58 on the 20 ballot papers under various light arrangements such as: incident light, oblique light, transmitted light, Ultra-Violet rays. Infra-Red rays and using various scientific equipments like: VSC-8000. Stereo Zoom Microscope and lenses of different magnification following observations per Table 1 and Table 2 have been made:
i. Table 1:
S.
No.
Ballot Paper
number
Markings given to seal Impressions
Observations
4BB 5258303
XI & X2
XI & X2- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure (Fig. 1)
4BB 5258305
X3, X4 & X5
X3 & X4- Tally on superimposition: VSC print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.2)
X3 & X5. Tally on superimposition -VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.3)
X4 & X5- Tally on superimposition- VSC 5000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 4)
4BB 5258316
X10 & XII
X10 & X11- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 5)
4BB 5256318
X12, X13 & X14
X12 & X13- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.6)
X12 & X14- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fie 7)
X13 & X14- Tally on superimposition- VSC 3000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 8)
4BB 5258320
X15 & X16
X15 & X16- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 9)
4BB 5258323
X17 & X18
X17 & X13- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 10)
Part of the Seal impressions marked X17 has extraneous impressions, and the same are not considered while using rest of superimposition
4BB 5258324
X19 & X20
X19 & X20- Tally on superimposition VSC primi enclosed VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 11)
4BB 5258329
X23 & X24
X23 & X24- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 12)
Seal impressions marked X24 is partly smudged.
4BB 5258330
X25 & X26
X25 & X26- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.13)
A small part of the Seal impressions marked X25 is not visible and the same has been duly 'considered' during rest of superimposition.
4BB 5258382
X27 & X28
X27 & X28- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 14)
4BB 5258389
X29 & X30
X29 & X30- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.15)
4BB 5258421
X33 & X34
X33 & X34- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure | (Fig. 16)
4BB 5258422
X35, X36 & X37
X35 & X36- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 17)
X35 & X37- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 18)
X36 & X37- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 19)
4BB 5258426
X38, X39 & X40
X38 & X40- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.20)
Superimposition of seal impressions marked X38 & X39 and X39 & X40 could not be done Refer Table 2 below for details.
4BB 5258524
X41 & X42
X41 & X42- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig 21)
A small part of the Seal impressions marked X42 is not visible and the same has been duly 'considered' during test of superimposition.
4BB 5258525
X43 & X44
X43 & X44- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 22)
4BB 5258529
X45 & X46
X45 & X46- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 23)
4BB 5258557
X47 & X48
X47 & X48- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.24)
Seal impressions marked X48 is partly smudged.
4BB 5258558
X49, X50 & X51
X49 & X50- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.25)
X49 & X51- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig 26)
X50 & X51-Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.27)
4BB 5258587
X54, X55 & X56
X54 & X55 Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.28)
Seal impressions marked X55 are partly not visible and only its visible part is considered.
X54 & X56- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 29)
X55 & X56- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.30)
Seal impressions marked X55 are partly not visible and only its visible part is considered.
4BB 5258598
X57 & X58
X57 & X58- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.31)
The seal impressions mentioned at S. No. 1 to 21 in the Table l above reveals similarities in design, size, shape and relative location of various strokes to the extent of their superimposition. Collective consideration of all these features leads me to the opinion that the seal impressions marked X1 & X2, X3 & X4. X3 & X5, X4 & X5; X10 & X11; X12 & X13. X12 & X14. X13 & X14, XI5 & XI6; X17 & X18; X19 & X20; X23 & X24; X25 & X26; X27 & X28; X29 & X30; X33 & X34; X35 & X36, X35 & X37, X36 & X37; X38 & X40; X41 & X42; X43 & X44; X45 & X46; X47 & X48; X49 & X50, X49 & X51, X50 & X51; X54 & X55, X54 & X56, X55 & X56 and X57 & X58 tally on their inter-se comparison.
ii. It has not been possible to compare the seal impressions marked X6 & X7; X8 & X9; X21 & X22; X31 & X32; X38 & X39, X39 & X40 and X52 & X53 for the manifest reasons mentioned under the column titled "Observations" in the Table 2 below
Table 2:
S.
No.
Ballot Paper
number
Markings given to seal Impressions
Observations
4BB 5258306
X6 & X7
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X7; hence its superimposition with X6 could not be done.
4BB 5258309
X8 & X9
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X8; hence its superimposition with X9 could not be done.
4BB 5258328
X21 & X22
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X22; hence its superimposition with X21 could not be done.
4BB 5258398
X31 & X32
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X31; hence its superimposition with X32 could not be done.
4BB 5258426
X38, X39 & X40
Lack of derail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X39; hence superimposition of X38 & X39 and X39 & X40 could not be done.
4BB 5258573
X52 & X53
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X52 & X53. Major parts of the seal Impressions marked X52 and X53 are not visible; hence their superimposition could not be done.
II. It has not been possible to opine whether the multiple seat impressions, available on each of the ballot papers mentioned in Table 1 and Table 2 above were put at the same time or at different times.
Note:-
1. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of Director, CFSL, New Delhi except the Judicial Courts and investigating authorities related with the case.
2. The report is admissible Under Section 293 Cr.P.C."
17. Thereafter the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 (Sangita v. State of U.P. and others) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.11.2024 wherein the following was observed as under:
"10. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Ministry of Home Affairs sent two reports dated 30.08.2024 in a sealed cover, which were directed on 09.09.2024 to be opened and to be supplied to learned counsel for the respective parties.
11. It is apparent from the CFSL reports that the double stamp on some of the ballot papers which were declared invalid are with the same seal. However, the CFSL has not been able to respond as to whether both the stamps have been placed at the same time or at different times.
12. Thus, the efforts made by this Court to resolve the election dispute through the measure of recounting was not successful, in the sense that a fair opportunity to the parties with respect to the validity of most of the ballot papers declared as invalid, is required to be accorded. With a view to determine their validity/invalidity, it seems that the Court would be required to resort to methods other than the CFSL reports.
13. Having regard to the fact that the elections were held in the year 2021 and there is a fixed tenure of five years, we are of the view that it is not expedient and desirable to send the matter back to the Election Tribunal. Therefore, a question of fresh determination of validity of votes declared as invalid can be taken by the High Court in a time bound manner.
14. For the reasons aforestated, we allow these appeals to the extent that the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court to decide the same afresh, taking into consideration the reports of the learned Court Commissioners, the CFSL reports, and any other report that may be relied upon by the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to file additional affidavits, if so required, within one week from the date of appearance before the High Court.
15. The High Court is requested to decide the cases expeditiously, within a period of four months.
16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
17. The Registry is directed to send the original record to the High Court forthwith.
18. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 18.11.2024.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
18. Post remand by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present case came to be nominated to this Bench on 06.02.2025.
19. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Ms. Sangita, fifth respondent dated 02.12.2024.
20. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner in response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 on 09.03.2025.
21. An application bearing No. 05 of 2025 came to be preferred by the respondent no. 5 to permit the fifth respondent to pursue the recounting Court Commissioner report and Central Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 30.08.2024/ 02.09.2024. The writ petitioner herein also preferred an application, titled as Civil Misc. Application (For Inspection) No. 7 of 2025 for inspection of the Advocate Commissioner Report and CFSL Report. Both the applications came to be decided on 23.04.2025 while passing the following orders:
"In Re: Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2025.
This application has been preferred by opposite party no.5 with a prayer to permit the applicant/ respondent no.5 to inspect recounting Court Commissioner report dated 08.07.2024 and CFSL report dated 30.08.2024.
Since there happens to be an order of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 07.11.2024 wherein the court was directed to decide the matter fresh taken into consideration, the report of learned Court Commissioner in CFSL report and other reports relied upon by the parties and there is no objection to either of the party for perusing the said report. Thus the application is allowed.
Accordingly the Registrar General of this Court is directed to fix an appropriate time on 30.04.2025 for inspection.
In Re: Application No. 7 of 2025
This application has been preferred by the applicant (petitioner) to inspect the record of Court Commissioner report dated 10.07.2024 filed in SLP (C) No. 5339 of 2023 and also of the CFSL report dated 30.08.2024.
Accordingly the Registrar General of this Court is directed to fix an appropriate time on 30.04.2025 for inspection.
Order on Writ Petition:
On the request of learned counsel for the parties, list this case on 05.05.2025 at 02:00 p.m. in the additional cause list for argument."
22. An application also came to be preferred by the writ petitioner bearing no. 06 of 2025 on 15.04.2025, wherein the following was recited:
"1. That Sri Sadavriksha was the counting agent of the petitioner at the time of counting of votes in the election of pradhan in dispute Gram Panchayat Bhelauha District Siddharthnagar.
2. That at the time of counting votes on 02.05.2021 with respect to the election in dispute 186 valid votes were counted in favor of the petitioner before the agent of both the candidates and counting officials and none of the ballots out of above 186 ballots were containing more then one voting mark/stamp. The aforesaid counting process was done under CCTV Camera/ surveillance and was recorded.
3. That it is interest of justice that the CCTV footage of the original counting held on 02.05.2021 may kindly be summoned from the District Magistrate Siddharthnagar and the office district election officer otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.
4. That after the original count, the counted ballots paper were not kept under the counter seal of the candidates or agent and record was within the custody of the officials of district administration/ district election officer.
5. That the validity of the disputed 26 invalid ballots papers alleged to have been found in recount on 08.02.2024 can be ascertained verified or examined through the CCTV footage of original count held on 02.05.2021."
Prayer
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to summon the CCTV footage or video recording of the counting of votes held on 02.05.2021 from the district Magistrate and district election officer with respect to the election of gram pradhan of gram panchayat Bhaluha Nyay Panchayat Sekhui, Viaks Khand Khesraha, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar."
Affidavit
I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That the dependent is the husband and pairokar of the petitioner, authorized to do parivi on her behalf and fully aware with the facts deposed to below.
2. That the deponent was the counting agent of the petitioner at the time of counting of votes in the election of pradhan in dispute Gram Panchayat Bhelauha District Siddharthnagar.
3. That at the time of counting votes on 02.05.2021 with respect to the election in dispute 186 valid votes were counted in favor of the petitioner before the agent of both the candidates and counting officials and none of the ballots out of above 186 ballots were containing more then one voting mark/stamp. The aforesaid counting process was done under CCTV Camera/ surveillance and was recorded.
4. That it is interest of justice that the CCTV footage of the original counting held on 02.05.2021 may kindly be summoned from the District Magistrate Siddharthnagar and the office district election officer otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.
5. That after the original count, the counted ballots paper were not kept under the counter seal of the candidates or agent and record was within the custody of the officials of district administration/ district election officer.
6. That the validity of the disputed 26 invalid ballots papers alleged to have been found in recount on 08.02.2024 can be ascertained verified or examined through."
23. The parties were allowed to inspect both the reports on 30.04.2025. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of fifth respondent, Sangita on 07.05.2025, written submissions were submitted by the counsel for the petitioner along with compilation of the judgment and the counsel for the respondent no. 5 also submitted its written submission and thereafter a judgment was reserved on 14.07.2025.
Argument of the counsel for the writ petitioner
24. Sri Vinay Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.P. Mathur, leaned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the election petition so preferred by the fifth respondent questioning the elections under Section 12(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1974 was not maintainable, particularly, when it lacked material facts and particulars and none of the allegations so made in the election petition fall in any of the grounds for challenge under Section 12(C) of the Act.
25. Submission is that in the election petition preferred by the fifth respondent, Sangita though a feeble attempt has been sought to be made to challenge the election while making bald allegations that the votes which were invalid on the premise that they only bore thumb impression and not stamp were accounted in favour of the writ petitioner and those votes which bore signatures, thumb impression and stamp were declared invalid. However, there is nothing on record except the bald allegations. Further submission is that at the time when the counting was done, no objection whatsoever was raised but for namesake just in order to create a case, a false allegations have been levelled that objections were raised by the fifth respondent, which was not considered and burshed aside.
26. Contention is that the said averments and allegations in the election petition sans mandatory requirement and, thus, by no stretch of imagination, the order could have been passed for recounting of the votes.
27. In order to buttress the said submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (a) Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others; AIR 1964 SC 1249, (b) Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and others; 1976 (1) SCC 687, (c) M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy and others; 2004 (6) SCC 341, (d) V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and Another; 2001 (3) SCC 81, (e) Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and others; 2004 (6) SCC 331, (f) Uday Chand v. Surat Singh and Another; 2009 (10) SCC 170, (g) Ram Adhar Singh vs. District Judge Ghazipur and others 1985 ALJ 615 (Full Bench); (h) Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2008 (3) AWC 2974; (i) Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3701 of 2011, decided on 24.01.2011; (j) Amit Narain Rai v. State of U.P. and others; 2012 (4) AWC 3328; (k) Smt. Shahbaz Bano v. Smt. Shahiba Bano and others; 2004 (96) RD 166.
28. It is also submitted that with respect to the manner and the mode, according to which, the elections of the Pradhans are to be conducted, stands covered under Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Elections of Members) Pradhan and U.P. Pradhans Rules, 1994 and a complete procedure has been set out starting from Section 95 sealing of the ballot box after poll, according to which, the ballot boxes are to be sealed in the presence of the contesting candidates or their agents (Abhikarta) and further a complete procedure has been provided under Rule 104 for counting wherein sub-clause (f) of Rule 104 itself envisages that the election officer shall allow the candidate their agents who may be present, reasonable opportunity to inspect all ballot papers which in the opinion of the election officers are liable to be rejected. Further the Election Officer shall on every ballot papers which is rejected and endorse rejection thereon in Hindi and, in case, any candidates, question the correctness of the rejection of the ballot paper then the election officer shall record briefly on such ballat paper, the grounds of the rejection.
29. Contention is that the fifth respondent had no point of time submitted any objection, however, merely a bald allegations have been made that it was orally objected but the same would not suffice as an objection should contain the details on the basis of which it is being preferred.
30. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Chinnasamy (supra) and Chandrika Prasad Yadav (supra) so as to contend that in absence of any material to substantiate that the objections were raised, the counting cannot be held to be invalid.
31. Nextly, it is also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that merely because pursuant to the order of the Court, recounting was done and the respondent No. 5 claims himself to have been the winner for the office of the Gram Pradhan but the same would not ipso facto be a ground to create a right, particularly, when the order of the recount of the votes must stand or fall on the nature of the averments made and the evidence adduced before the order of the recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recounts of the votes. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors; 1989 (1) SCC 526 and a decision of this court in Smt. Munisha Devi v. State of U.P.; 2013 (4) UPLBEC 3710.
32. In nutshell, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner is that once the election petition lacked material facts and particulars and there is no iota of evidence to show even as per the own saying of the 5th respondent that any written objection was submitted by the 5th respondent and coupled with the fact that the recounting does not confer any right the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and the writ petitioner is to be declared as winning candidate.
Argument of the counsel for the fifth respondent- Sangita/ State
33. Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri Ashish Singh along with Shri Ganesh Kumar Verma has submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that post counting of the votes on 02.05.2021 much water has flown as pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023, with the consent of the parties, the recounting was conducted on 03.07.2024, wherein the 5th respondent- Sangita obtained 668 votes whereas the writ petitioner obtained 645 votes. Submission is that once on the consent so tendered by the writ petitioner, the recounting was done on 03.07.2024 then it is not open for the writ petitioner to question the legality of the recounting.
34. Argument is that the Court Commissioner got the recounting done in the presence of the parties and thereafter by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to the invalid votes, report was sought from CFSL laboratory and once the same was found to be inconclusive, the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023, came to be disposed of on 07.11.2024 wherein the direction is to decide the matter afresh taking into the consideration the report of the Court Commissioner, CFSL report and any other report which may be relied upon by the parties, though liberty was accorded to the parties to file additional affidavit but the writ petitioner herein has chosen not to file any affidavit/ objection questioning the recounting of votes done on 03.07.2024, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the submission is that the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is inter se final and binding and now it is open for the writ petitioner to question the validity of the recounting.
35. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the argument of the counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, he submits that he has nothing more than to add except the fact that the writ petition has rendered infructuous, particularly, when the writ petitioner has not filed any objection to the recounting done on 03.07.2024, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Analysis
36. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
37. Undisputedly, with respect to the elections of the Gram Pradhan of Panchayat, Bhaluha, Nyay Panchayat Sekhui, Vikash Khand Khesraha, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar. Elections were held on 26.04.2021 and the counting of the votes was done on 02.05.2021. The writ petitioner herein secured 672 votes and the 5th respondent secured 668 votes and 40 votes were declared invalid out of the total polled votes 1380. The election petition came to be preferred by the 5th respondent under Section 12(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1974 which was contested by the writ petitioner herein on various grounds, on 27.01.2023, an order came to be passed by the Prescribed Authority- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar for recounting of the votes. The writ petitioner challenged the order of the recounting dated 27.01.2023 of the Prescribed Authority- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar in the present writ petition, in which after hearing the parties on 07.02.2023 judgment was reserved. However, pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2023 to the Prescribed Authority recounting was held on 08.02.2023, wherein the 5th respondent was declared as winner by the 24 votes, the writ petition came to be allowed on 09.02.2023 setting aside the order dated 27.01.2023 of the Prescribed Authority- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar. The order dated 09.02.2023 passed in the present writ petition setting aside the order of the recounting dated 27.01.2023 of the Prescribed Authority- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar was subject matter of challenge in S.L.P. (C) No. 5339 of 2023, in which an order came to be passed on 13.05.2024 with the consent of the parties for recounting of the votes. Recounting came to be conducted on 03.07.2024, wherein the writ petition secured 645 votes and the 5th respondent 668 votes and 67 votes were declared to be invalid in total of the polled votes 1380. Advocate Commissioner tendered his report dated 05.07.2024 on 10.07.2024, thereafter the Apex Court on 15.07.2024 passed an order for handing over of the result of the recounting in sealed cover to the Court. On 22.07.2024 another order came to be passed wherein, two issues were framed (a) whether the sealed used by the voter on two places of one ballot paper was one or two separate seals (b) whether both seals were used at the same time or different time and the matter was directed to be examined by the forensic laboratory. Thereafter an order came to be passed on 12.08.2024 issuing directions to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to tender its report on two issues/ aspects. A report came to be submitted on 02.09.2024/ 30.08.2024 observing that it is not possible to opine whether multiple seals impression available on each of the ballot papers mentioned in table no. 1 and table no. 2 were put at same time or different time.
38. Thereafter on 07.11.2024, an order came to be passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court allowing the appeals while setting aside the judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed in the present writ petition remitting the matter to this Court to decide the same fresh taking into the consideration, the report of the learned Court Commissioner, the CFSL report and any other report may be relied upon by the parties while according liberty to the additional affidavit if so required.
39. Interestingly, the writ petitioner has not amended the writ petition in the light of the subsequent developments which occurred post recounting held on 03.07.2024, pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 07.11.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 (Sangita v. State of U.P. and others).
40. An objection in the shape of an application bearing no. 06 of 2025 dated 15.04.2025 has been filed before this Court contents of the same have been extracted in para-22 of the present judgment. A bare look of the objection raised by the writ petitioner would go to show that at the time of the counting of the votes on 02.05.2021 with respect to the election in dispute 186 votes were counted in favour of the writ petitioner before the agent of the respect candidates and counting officials and none of the ballots out of above 186 ballots were containing more than one voting mark/ stamp and the aforesaid counting process was done under CCTV Camera/ surveillance and was recorded and after the original counting, the counted ballots paper were not kept under the counter seal of the candidates or agent and record was within the custody of the officials of District Administration/ District Election Officer and the validity of the 26 invalid ballots papers alleged to have been found in recount on 08.02.2023 can be ascertained verified or examined through CCTV footage of the original count held on 02.05.2021.
41. In the opinion of the Court, the said objection cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was never the case of the writ petitioner before the writ court when an order came to be passed on 09.02.2023 and nothing has been brought on record to show that the same was pleaded before the Hon'ble Apex Court, however, for the very first time, just for namesake, the said objection has been raised. Even otherwise, the said objection is not supported by any documents and furthermore there is nothing on record to suggest that the said objection was raised at any point of time. Moreover, it appears that the said objection is an afterthought as no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the writ petitioner showing any valid ground that for certain compelling reasons, the same could not raised earlier.
42. Nonetheless, since there happens to be neither any objection preferred by the writ petitioner either before the Hon'ble Apex Court or before this Court objecting to the report of the Court Commissioner and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory report nor there is any pleadings in the writ petition, thus, this Court is not required to delve into the said aspect of the matter.
43. Nevertheless, the votes held to be invalid post recounting conducted in the presence of the Court Commissioner appointed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory showing its inability to give a inconclusive finding in absence of the objection to the same, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record any conclusive finding in this regard.
44. Even otherwise, once on the consent of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court recounting was ordered and the recounting was done in the presence of the writ petitioner/ her agent and the fifth respondent obtained more votes then the writ petitioner than it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioner to question the recounting as she is estopped from raising any objection.
45. So much so, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 07.11.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5339 of 2023 (Sangita v. State of U.P. and others) is inter se binding upon the parties and this Court, wherein it was required of this Court to decide the matter afresh bearing in mind the Central Forensic Science Laboratory report and the report of the Court Commissioner.
46. Moreover, it is also not open for the writ petitioner to question the maintainability of the election petition preferred by the fifth respondent as well as the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharthnagar in Case No.02523 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202117630202523) (Sangita vs Sonmati and others) directing for recounting, particularly, though the challenge raised to the said order came to be endorsed in favour of the writ petitioner in the present writ petition on 09.02.2023 but on further challenge by the fifth respondent, the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in the present writ petition came to be quashed on 07.11.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter back to this Court to decide the matter afresh bearing in mind the Central Forensic Science Laboratory report and the report of the Court Commissioner.
47. No other grounds have been either raised or pressed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
48. In view of the said observations, no good ground is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.08.2025
A. Prajapati
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
