SOHAN LAL versus BABU GANDHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 22-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SOHAN LAL 
v. 
BABU GANDHI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, S.N. VARIA VA AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
MP. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993-Sections 80 
and 122-Election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat-Recounting 
A 
B 
of votes-Held: After the declaration of the result, Court or Tribunal can C 
direct recounting of votes and the Returning Officer has no power either to 
direct recount or to change the results of the election-Once the result is 
declared, the only remedy of an aggrieved party is to file an Election Petition 
under Section 122-Hence order of High Court setting aside order of Sub 
Divisional Court directing recount of votes on the ground that the aggrieved 
party had not applied to the returning officer for recount of votes, is set D 
aside-Election Laws . 
Election was held for the post of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. 
Appellant was orally informed that he had won the election after counting 
of the votes. However, when the result was officially declared, respondent 
No. I won the election. Aggrieved appellRnt filed an el•ction petition before E 
the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). SDO directed recounting of votes and 
it was found that appellant had won. Respondent No.I filed a writ petition. 
On remand of the matter to SDO, it was again found that appellant had 
won. Respondent again filed a writ petition. High Court following the 
decision in Smt. Ram Rati v. Saroj Devi and Ors case that unless a party F 
first applies to the Returning Officer for recounting of votes it is not open 
to Tribunal or Court to direct recounting, allowed the appeal. However, 
it did not decide any other points raised in the petition. In appeals before 
this Court the two Judge Bench had reservation about the principle laid 
down in Ram Rati's case and referred the matter to three Judge Bench. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. After declaration of results, the Returning Officer has 
no power either to direct recount or to change the results of the election. 
G 
In view of Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj 
Adhiniyam, 1993 the holding that, in an election petition, after the H 
333 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A declaration of the result, Court or Tribunal cannot direct recounting of 
votes unless the aggrieved party has first applied in writing for recounting 
of votes is incorrect. There is no prohibition in the Act or under the rules 
prohibiting Court or Tribunal to direct recounting of votes. Even otherwise 
a party may not know that recounting is necessary till after result is 
declared. At this stage, it would not be possible for him to apply for 
B recounting to the Returning Officer. His only remedy would be to file an 
Election Petition under Section 122. Jn such a case, Court or Tribunal is 
bound to consider the plea and where case is made out, it may direct 
recount depending upon the evidence led by the parties. 1338-C-El 
1.2. In the instant case, there was obvious error in declaring the 
C result: Appellant had been orally told that he had won. He only came to 
know that Respondent No.I had been declared elected after the result was 
declared. At this stage, he could not have approached the Returning 
Officer for recount. The only remedy, therefore, available to appellant was 
to file an Election Petition; Therefore the decision of High Court is set 
D aside, As the writ petitfon was disposed off only on the basis of Ram Rati 's 
case and High Court did not deal with other points raised in the writ 
petition, it is restored to the file of High Court which it shall decide on 
merits. 1338-B, D, F) 
E 
F 
Smt. Ram Rati v. Saro} Devi and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 3072, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7623-7624 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 914/2000 and M.C.C. No. 128 of 2001.. 
Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi and A.P. Dhamija, for the 
Appellant. 
Niraj Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1. 
G 
B.S. Banthia and W.A. Nomani, for the Respondent No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. VARIA VA, J. Leave granted. 
H 
fhese Appeals are against the judgment dated 27th March, 200 I. Briefly 
...... 
' 
SOHAN LAL v. BABU GANDHI [S.N. VARIAVA, J.J 
335 
stated the facts are as follows:-
A 
On 20th January, 2000 the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram 
Panchayat, Ringnodiya, Indore was held. After the counting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.