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 of 2004.
By reason of an order dated 29.6.2004, the Election Tribunal directed recounting of the ballot papers.
The Tribunal has also, in view of the materials brought on records by the parties, directed recounting of votes as the number of ballot papers was stated to have been rejected was 147, which exceeded the margin of 11 votes by which margin the appellant was declared elected.
The said finding of fact was arrived at after the parties adduced their respective evidence.
The Presiding Officer was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the election petition.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said revision application has been dismissed.
85 of 2005 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
From a perusal of the election petition filed by the 1st respondent herein it appears that he obtained 1313 votes, whereas the appellant obtained 1324 votes.
The learned Tribunal also took into account the fact that the appellant herein in his evidence did number state as to how many votes had been rejected due to number affixation of stamps or how many of them had been rejected where double stamps were affixed.
He won by a margin of 11 votes.
It was further averred that the companynting 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 companynted in his favour he would have been declared elected.
The Tribunal furthermore took into account the statement of the 1st respondent herein that 24 25 votes polled by him were intermingled with the votes of the appellant.
The 1st respondent was found to have made out a prima facie case for recounting of votes by both the Tribunal and also the High Court on the premise that a large number of votes might have wrongly been rejected.
Arising out of SLP C No.
It was clearly averred that 147 votes were wrongly rejected.
The 1st respondent filed an election petition, inter alia, companytending that while companynting the ballot papers, 147 votes were wrongly rejected.
The appellant herein companytested 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.
