SMT RAM RATI versus SAROJ DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 25-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SMT RAM RATI 
v. 
SARO.T DEVI AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Election Law : 
M.P. Panchayat Election Rules 1994 : 
R. 76-Recount of votes-Panchayat Election-Election of Sar-
pa11ch-Electio11 petition by defeated candidate alleging elections 11ot to have 
been propelly conducted and recounting was not done 011 his application to 
do so-Tribunal ordered recmmting-Held, the fact that the Officer had not 
passed a11y order in w1iti11g would i11dicate that the election petitioner had not 
D made a11y applicati01t-Secrecy of ballot should not be breached-Tribunal 
or Co wt to order recount i11 rare cases 011 satisfactory grounds. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3678 of 
1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.96 of the Madhya 
F 
G 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 632 of 1995. 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant. 
Prakash Shrivastava for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench, passed on October 30, 1996 
in W.P. No. 632/95. 
Elections to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Laua Kothar 
H 
Bloc~,,.,Raipur Distt. Rewa were held on May 30, 1994. 223 votes were 
1050 
RAM RATI v. SAROJ DEVI 
1051 
polled in favour of the appellant while the respondent was polled 207 votes. 
In Form No. 26-B, Ex. P2, the Returning Officer had declared that the 
elections to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat were held and 
the appellant, Smt. Ram Rati, R/o Village Laua Kothar, Raipur Kur-
chulian, Rewa Distt. M.P., who was a candidate in the said election, was 
duly elected. The said certificate of the Returning Officer is dated June 1, 
1994. The respondent, feeling aggrieved filed an Election Petition. In the 
said petition, the respondent stated that the election was not properly 
conducted; an application for recounting was made but it was not done; 
evidence was adduced in support thereof. The Tribunal directed recount-
ing, which has been affirmed by the High Court. Thus this appeal, by 
special leave. 
The· question is' : whether the respondent has made any application 
for recounting? The order of the Tribunal indicates thus : 
"According to the aforesaid, after discussing the election applica-
A 
B 
c 
tion and analysing the submissions of Applicant and Respondent D 
No. 1, the Vihit Adhikari at the first instance is satisfied with this 
that to decide the dispute properly and administering justice to 
the parties it is essential that recounting be got done. Therefore, 
Returning Officer (Panchayat), Development Division, Raipur 
Kurchuliyan District Rewa is hereby directed that after obtaining E 
all the documents connected with Gram Panchayat Laua Kothar 
Sarpanch Election 1994 from the strong room in police custody, 
he should present himself in the Court on 1.3.95 at 10.30 AM." 
The question, therefore, is : whether the respondent has made any 
application to the returning Officer and recounting was properly done? 
F 
Rule 76 of the M.P. Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994 (for short, the 'Rules') 
postulates thus : 
"76. Recount of Votes - (1) After the completion of the counting, 
the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or such other officers G 
authorised by him shall record in the result sheet in Forms men-
tioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 73 the total number of votes polled 
by each candidate and announce the same. 
(2) After such announcement has been made a candidate or, in 
his absence, his election agent may apply in writing to the Return-
H 
' 1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
ing Officer (Panchayat) or such other officers authorised by him, 
for a recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted 
stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. 
B 
c 
(3) On such an application being made the returning officer 
(Panchayat) or such other officers authorised by him shall decide 
the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or 
may reject it if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. 
( 4) Every decision of the returning officer (Panchayat) or such 
other officers authorised by him, under the Sub-rule (3) shall be 
in writing and contain the reason thereof." 
By application of sub-rule (1) of Section 76, after the completion of 
the counting, the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or such other officers 
autho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.