JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2003 passed by the learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22838 of 2002.
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that the writ-petitioner-Appellant Nihal Ahmad is the elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question. Challenging the said election, an election petition was filed by the respondent No. 9 herein Zahiruddin under Section 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. By order dated 8.8.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 33447 of 2000 this Court had directed that the election petition be decided within six months. However, written statement was filed by the writ-petitioner-appellant only on 10.4.2001. The election-petitioner filed an application for recount of votes which was supported by an affidavit. The writ-petitioner appellant tried to avoid the hearing on several dates and also filed a transfer petition only in order to delay the hearing of the case. The election petition was fixed for evidence on several dates and in such circumstances the prescribed authority closed the evidence and decided the application for re-count of votes on merits. By its detailed order dated 14.5.2002 which has been passed after considering all the aspects of the case, a direction for re-count of votes had been issued by the Prescribed Authority which was impugned in the writ petition.
3. After considering the entire facts of the case and also taking into considerations various decisions of the Apex Court relating to recount of votes in election matters, the writ court dismissed the writ petition, which is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Having heard Sri V. C. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri I, D. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Dr. G. S. D. Misra for the contesting respondent and on perusal of record we do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned judgment.
5. It is true that the law is settled that an order of recount touches upon the secrecy of ballots which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations and such discretion should not be exercised by the Courts to indulge in roving and fishing enquiry as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind. AIR 1975 SC 2117 and also in the cases of Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lai Kachi, AIR 1975 SC 283 ; Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376 ; Chanda Singh v. Ch. Shiv Ram, AIR 1975 SC 403 and Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 502. It is, however, also true that the Courts can direct recount of votes in certain circumstances to do justice between the parties as has been held by the Apex Court in Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355. The ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court with regard to recount of votes is that recount should not be directed merely for the sake of asking. It should be ordered only in cases where there are materials on record for issuing such directions.
6. In the present case, a categorical finding has been recorded that the elected candidate, who was the writ-petitioner, had deliberately avoided hearing of the election petition and after having been given several chances for adducing evidence, the same was closed and only thereafter the detailed order was passed by the prescribed authority for recount of votes. The material facts on the basis of which such order had been passed has been vividly noted by the writ court, which is quoted below :
"In the present case, there are specific allegations of irregularities in counting of votes. 399 votes were polled which were shown to be 394 at booth No. 69. At booth No. 60, 462 votes were polled out of which only 453 votes were counted. At booth No. 71 in all 1325 votes were polled but counting were made for 1311 votes. Written complaints were made by the election petitioner but no action was taken. It is stated that 22 invalid votes at booth No. 69 were actually found to have been stamped with petitioner symbol. The prescribed authority has discussed the pleadings and has prima facie found gross irregularities in counting of votes in his order. It is significant to note that petitioner has won by difference of "only 8 votes."
7. In our view, the reasons given for directing recount of votes were perfectly justified. The difference of votes polled in favour of the petitioner who was the winning candidate and the next candidate was only 8 votes and there being specific allegations of irregularities regarding more than 28 votes polled having not been counted at booth Nos. 69, 70 and 71 alone, besides there being allegations of 22 votes polled in favour of the election petitioner having been declared invalid, we are of the view that this case certainly falls in the exception where recount of votes was required to be directed. Accordingly we do not find any illegality or infirmity with the judgment and order of the writ court or that of the prescribed authority.
8. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.