Hari Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8860 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                             ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 14891 of 2022

        Between:-
        HARI SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RATAN SINGH, AGE
        53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
        VILLAGE KHADWAI, KHAIRWAYA, DABRA,
        GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,              DISTRICT
        GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      RETURNING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT) GRAM
        PANCHAYAT  KHADWAI,   DABRA DISTRICT
        GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE AND SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA -
        ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) That, writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents to decide the application for recounting Annexure P/4 immediately without any further delay on its own merits as early as possible prior to date of declaration of result i.e. 14.7.2022 and recount

the votes of polling station no.207 and accordingly result be declared.

(ii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

It is submitted by Shri Vivek Khedkar that the number of votes received by different candidates in booth No.207 was declared by the authorities and was supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner also came to know that another amended chart has been prepared which is at page No.27 and the votes received by Suresh and Sanjay Verma have been corrected by applying whitener and in place six votes received by Suresh as per declaration at page

No.26 it has been shown that Suresh had received 197 votes whereas against 03 votes received by Sanjay Verma as per the declaration at page No.26 it was shown that Sanjay Verma has received six (06) votes. In the declaration whitener is also clearly visible. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that recounting may be done by the respondents and till then the result may not be declared.

To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200 and in the case of Harnek Singh vs. Charanjit Singh and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 383.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file an election petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has tried to project that he has filed an application for recall on the ground of discrepancy in two results declared in respect of booth

No.207. However, from the representation made by the petitioner, it is clear that there is not a single whisper about the second result showing that Suresh has received 197 votes and Sanjay Verma has received 06 votes. Thus, it is clear that the ground on which the petitioner wants to place reliance does not find place in the representation/application made by the petitioner for recounting of votes.

Under these circumstances, in view of ground raised by the petitioner for the first time before this Court, this petition cannot be entertained. The application for recounting is to be decided by the authorities and since the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to second result of booth No.207, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing election petition, if occasion arises.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.07.05 10:21:39 +05'30'