UDEY CHAND versus SURAT SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 09-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"'· 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 147 
UDEY CHAND 
v. 
SURAT SINGH AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5462 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 9, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Election Laws - Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -
A 
B 
s. 176 -
Gram Panchayat Elections - Election petition 
challenging election of appellant under s.176(4)(b); seeking C 
re-counting of votes - Petition allowed by Election Tribunal -
Order of Tribunal for re-counting of votes - Propriety of- Held: 
Not proper -
In an election petition seeking order u/ 
s.176(4)(b), the Court is obliged to apply its mind to material 
~ facts, disclosed in the petition, on which allegations are D 
founded, alongwith contemporaneous evidence - An order for 
re-count on basis of bare a/legations in election petition would 
not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction under the provision -
On facts, allegations in the election petition were not only 
vague, even basic material facts were missing in the petition E · 
- Affidavit in support of the allegations, was neither filed nor 
called for -
Tribunal passed the order of re-count 
~mechanically without application of mind -
Haryana 
Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 - rr. 69 and 70. 
Appellant was declared elected as Sarpanch in the F 
Gram Panchayat elections by a margin of four votes, 
having secured 881 votes as against 877 votes secured 
by his nearest rival, respondent No.1. 
Respondent no.1 filed election petitlon chal.lenging G 
\ the election of appellant under Section 176(4)(b) of 'the 
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and seeking re-
counting of votes, on the ground that there was 
irregularity in counting and declaration of result by the 
147 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Returning Officer. Serious allegations of misconduct were 
levelled against the Returning Officer. The Election 
t-
Tribunal allowed the election petition and passed order 
for re-counting of the votes. The order was upheld by the 
High Court. 
8 
Before this Court, the appellant contended that 
" 
before directing re-count in terms of Section 176(4)(b) of 
the Act, the Tribunal was obliged to record a finding, on 
the basis of material on record, that a prima facie case for 
c 
re-count had been made out but in the present case there 
was neither any documentary nor oral evidence ,,., 
record on the basis whereof the Tribunal could have 
recorded such a finding. The appellant also submitted that 
having failed to apply for re-count in terms of Rule 69(2) 
D 
of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 after 
announcement of the result by the Returning Officer and 
having signed the result sheet in Form 19, the election 
petitioner was estopped from raising any objection in 
regard- to the counting at a later stage. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The salutary principle in election law-is 
that since an order for inspection and re-count of the 
ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order 
.>-
cannot be made as a matter of course. In the entire 
F 
election procass, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and 
inviolable except where strong prima facie circumstances 
to suspect the pur~ty, propriety and_ legality ,in the 
counting are mf.jat: out. Before an Election Tribunal can· 
permit scrutiny ',1 Lallot papers and order re-count, two 
G basic requirements viz. (i) the, election petition seeking re-
count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate 
statement of all the material facts on which the allegations 
of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded, and (ii) 
on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the 
H 
UDEY CHAND v. SURAT SINGH AND ANR. 
149 
allegations, the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that 
A 
in order to decide the dispute and to do complete and 
effectual justice between the parties, making of such an 
order is imperatively necessary, are satisfied. [Para 9) 
[158-A-E] 
B 
1.2. The sole object of the Legislature in giving wide 
powers to the Election Tribunal is to decide the 
objections under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 
176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, 
expeditiously without holding a full-fledged regular C 
enquiry, as postulated in clause (a) of the said provision, 
so that the actual mandate of the electorate is given effect 
to without any delay; the successful candidate is able to 
utilise his complete tenure for the purpose he has been 
elected and above all the purity of election process is 
safeguarded. Nonetheles

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