U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Election for ‘Gram Pradhan’ – The genesis of the appellant’s discontent was the inconsistency between the Presiding Officer’s statement to him that in polling booths 43, 44 and 45 a total of 1194 votes were cast, and the final tally given under ‘Form 46’ which showed a total of 1213 votes cast in the said booths – Election Petition – The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered a recount of the votes casted – Correctness:
Held: The allegation made is that there is a disparity in the count of votes informed to the appellant and that finally disclosed in the official form – It relates to 19 votes, i.e., the difference between 1193 and 1213 – The margin of victory of the respondent was 37 votes, and so, in a sense, victory of position would remain yet elusive of the appellant – However, the concern lies is in how one got to power – This process has to be in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms-If not, then such a person has to be deprived of the power, and the decision-making by the people must begin once more – When the officer was present there and he informed the candidate, appellant herein, of the number of votes cast, then why there was any difference in number – Four persons contested for the post of ‘Pradhan’ – Three of the four persons submitted by way of affidavit that they had doubts regarding the propriety of the election, and they would support a recount of votes – There was also use of police force to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area – The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort – If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability – Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same – The manner in which election was conducted, and that important documents pertaining to the election are missing and such absence is unexplained, the recount in the present facts would be justified. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.