Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kunwar Dilipsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 15180 of 2022
Between:-
KUNWAR DILIPSINGH S/O SHRI NARAYAN
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST GRAM PATOLI, TEHSIL
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI MANOJ MANAV- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER VALLABH BHAWAN
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEHSILDAR CUM RETURNING OFFICER TESHIL
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. JILA PANCHAYAT SHAJAPUR THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. JANPAD PANCHAYAT SHAJAPUR THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. BALWANT SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH , AGED
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.07.11
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
18:29:27 IST
R/O GRAM PATOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. BHANWARSINGH S/O DEVISINGH , AGED
2
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O GRAM PATOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. PREMSINGH S/O VIKRAMSINGH RAJPUT ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM PATOLI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. SARDARPUR S/O SHRI DEVISINGH RAJPUT ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM PATOLI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRADYUMNA KIBE - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI ASHOK
AIREN- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO )
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for considering
his application for recounting of votes.
It is submitted that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of
Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Patoli Tehsil and District Shajapur. As per the
schedule program, the election took place on 25.06.2022. The petitioner
submitted an application for recounting to the returning officer on the same day
and the second application was submitted on 27.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 have filed preliminary
reply and submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for recounting has
been considered by the competent authority and the same has been decided by
order dated 10.07.2022.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the application
filed by the petitioner for recounting has been decided by the respondent. Thus,
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.07.11
18:29:27 IST
the grievance raised in the petition has been redressed. There is no challenge to
the order of rejection of application for recounting in the writ petition. Further
disputed question of facts are involved in the present case viz. there is not
receiving of the application for recounting submitted by the petitioner before the
Presiding Officer which are to be adjudicated by recording of the evidence
which can only be done in the election petition. The writ petition is not
maintainable. The results are to be declared on 14.07.2022. A coordinate Bench
at Jabalpur in the case of Smt. Savitribai vs. State Election Commission (W.P.
No.14728/2022) has dismissed the petition for recount of votes after taking into
consideration the various judgments passed by the apex Court in the case of R.
Narayanan vs. S. Semmalai and others - (1980) 2 SCC 537, Vadivelu v.
Sundaram and others - (2000) 8 SCC 355 and Bhabhi vs. Sheo Govind
and others - (1976) 1 SCC 687.
After considering the aforesaid judgments, the coordinate Bench held
that the recounting of ballot papers can be considered only if its is accompanied
by genuine cause supported by valid reasons. Recounting of votes cannot be
directed just at the sweet will of the candidate. The secrecy of a vote is to be
maintained and unless and until, a genuine cause supported by valid reasons is
made out, recounting of votes cannot be directed. The disputed question of
facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. The
petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing election petition in accordance
with the law.
Accordingly, no case is made out for entertaining this petition. The
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.07.11
18:29:27 IST
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.07.11
18:29:27 IST
