SADHU SINGH versus DARSHAN SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 26-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SADHU SINGH 
v. 
DARSHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
JULY 26, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Election laws: 
Election petition-Recounting of votes-Direction for-Relevant factors-
C Discussed. 
Election petition-Recounting of votes-Order of Tribunal upheld by 
High Court-On appeal, held: Finding of fact by Courts below that the 
conditions precedent necessary for direction of recounting of votes are 
D satisfied--Hence, no case made out for interference. 
Appellant had won the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram 
Panchayat by a margin of 11 votes. Aggrieved first respondent filed 
election petition wherein he prayed for the recounting of votes on the 
ground that while counting the ballot papers, 147 votes were wrongly 
E rejected; 25 ballots which were polled in his favour were intermingled in 
the bundles of elected candidate. Election Tribunal directed recounting 
of ballot papers. Aggrieved appellant filed revision before High Court, 
which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The factors which are relevant for directing recounting 
of votes are: (i) prima facie case must be established; (ii) material facts 
must be pleaded stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) a roving 
and fishing inquiry shall not be directed by way of an order for recounting 
G of votes; (iv) an objection to the said effect should be raised; (v) and 
secrecy of ballot papers should be maintainecl. (78-H; 79-A-B[ 
H 
Gursewak Singh v. Avtar Singh & Ors., (20061 4 SCC 542; M. 
Chinnasamy v. K.C. Pa/anisamy, (20041 6 SCC 341; Chandrika Prasad Yadav 
v. State of Bihar, (200416 SCC 331 and Tanaji Ramchandra Nimhan v. Swati 
76 
• 
,, 
SADHU SINGH v. DARSHAN SINGH [SINHA, J.] 
77 
Vinayak Nimhan & Ors .. 120061 2 SCC 300, relied on. 
2.1. A finding of fact has been arrived at that the First respondent 
had raised an objection as regards the manner in which the ballot papers 
had been counted by the officers. The said finding of fact was arrived at 
after the parties adduced their respective evidence. 179-DI 
2.2. The First respondent was found to have made out a primafacie 
case for recounting of votes by both the Tribunal and also the High Court 
A 
B 
on the premise that a large number of votes might have wrongly been 
rejected. The First respondent not only lodged protests in regard to the 
manner in which the Presiding Officer counted the votes, but had also 
urged him to recount the votes. He had also given specific instances in C 
respect thereof in his election petition. He had not only placed necessary 
facts in his election petition but also in his deposition before the Tribunal 
categorically stated that the Presiding Officer did not assign any reason 
for declaring a huge number of votes as invalid. Since the conditions 
precedent necessary for a direction of recounting of votes stand satisfied, D 
no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. 
(79-E, F-G; 80-AI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3165 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order and dated 7.12.2004 of the High Court E 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3194/2004. 
C.L. Sahu for the Appellant. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant herein contested an election held on 29.6.2003 to the 
post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Village Bareh, Tehsil Budhlada 
in the State of Punjab. The appellant herein was declared elected. He won by G 
a margin of 11 votes. The 1st respondent filed an election petition, inter alia, 
contending that while counting the ballot papers, 14 7 votes were wrongly 
rejected. It was further averred that the counting staff headed by the Presiding 
Officer intermingled about 25 ballots, which were polled in his favour in the 
bundles of the elected candidate and had the said votes been counted in his H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A favour he would have been declared elected. By reason of an order dated 
29.6.2004, the Election Tribunal directed recounting of the ballot papers. The 
validity of the said order was questioned by the appellant herein by filing a 
revision application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which 
was numbered as Civil Revision No.3194 of2004. By reason of the impugned 
B judgment, the said revision application has been dismissed. 
Mr. C.L. Sahu. learned counsel appearing on be

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