MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS versus RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 27-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS 
B 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Election : 
C 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-R.63(1) and (2)-Election-Votes-
. Irregularities in counting-Claim for recounting-Grant of-Counting of 
votes in six rounds-Election agent of appellant certifYing that counting in 
first [we rounds proper-Corrections in Form 20 in sixth round not found in 
original Form but only in copies-Application for recount rejected by 
D Returning Officer-Election petition before High Court dismissed-Validity 
of-Held, application for recount should contain valid and precise grounds-
Demand for recount should not be ordinarily granted unless a prima facie 
case regarding error in counting effecting result of returned candidate is 
made out-Since in the instant case, no foundation had been laid down for 
recount, claim rightly rejected. 
E 
In the Dasuya Assembly elections, respondent No.1 was declared elected 
by a margin of 53 votes. Appellant, a defeated candidate made an application 
for recount which was rejected by Returning Officer. Thereafter, appellant 
filed an Election Petition which was dismissed by High Court holding that 
the allegations of irregularities were not prima facie established. Hence the 
F present appeal. 
G 
On behalf of appellant it was contended that the Returning Officer 
instead of rejecting the application ought to have ordered recount; and th~1t in 
cases where the victory margin is very small, the claim for a fresh coumting 
should not be summarily brushed aside. 
On behalf of respondent No. I, it was contended that the first 5 rounds 
of counting has been certified by the election agent of appellant himself as . 
proper and there could not be any complaint in regard to those rounds; and 
that there was no plea in the petition regarding irregularities in 6th and final 
H round. As to corrections in From 20 it was pointed out that there wer•~ no 
148 
-
MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA 
149 
corrections in the original form but only in the copies, some errors had crept A 
in which were corrected. Thus, there was absolutely no basis for High Court 
to interfere with the result of elections. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. No foundation had been laid by appellant for recount either B 
at the stage of filing the application before the Returning Officer or at the 
stage of the filing of the Election Petition before the High Court. Thus, 
appellants's claim for recount has been rightly rejected. (151-D-F) 
1.2. A candidate or his agent has an opportunity to ask for recount at 
two stages: first, before election result is finally declared, and second, by way C 
of election petition before the High Court. An application under Rule 63(2) of 
the Conduct of Election Rules is to be given immediately after the votes 
secured by each of the candidates is announced under Rule 63(1), but such 
an application cannot be given after the candidate is declared elected under 
Rule 64. If an application is made under Rule 63(2) the Returning Officer D 
shall decide the matter either by allowing the application in whole or in part 
or may reject in its entirety, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. 
The application for recount should contain valid precise grounds on which 
the recount is asked for. When the Rules provide for enough opportunity to 
a candidate or his agent to watch the counting process before the result is 
declared and if an objection is raised as to the validity of any ballot paper and E 
if such objection is rejected improperly, it would afford a basis for recount in 
an election petition. The secrecy of the vote has to be maintained and demand 
for recount should not ordinarily be granted unless the election petitioner 
makes out a prima facie case with regard to error in counting of such 
magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate may be F 
affected. Smallness of victory margin by itself may not be a sufficient ground 
for recount. However, if prima facie case is made out as to error in counting, 
small margin by which the returned candidate succeeded in the election 
assumes significance, inviting recount. [157-E-F-G-H; 158-A] 
1.3. In the instant case, PW 5, an election agent of B.S.P. candidate has G 
categorically deposed that election agent of appellant has signed the statements 
of votes counted in token of correctness thereof in appropriate

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.