Asha Devi v. Pooja Devi and others) by which a direction was given for re
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50341 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10162 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pooja Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
Legal Reasoning
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, 2 and 7 and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Surabhi Srivastava, learned appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Joint Magistrate, Deoria/respondent No.2 in Case No.RST/7085 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202105200107085) (Asha Devi Vs. Pooja Devi and others) by which a direction was given for recounting. 3. It is argued by Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that order of recounting is bad in the eyes of law since no cogent reasons/findings were recorded by the Prescribed Authority/respondent No.2 in the order impugned. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground of suspicion and also on the ground that there is difference of one vote. It is further argued that the order impugned has been passed by the Prescribed Authority only on surmises and conjunctures, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon paragraph Nos.14, 17, 18, & 19
Decision
of the writ petition. He also placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Kattinokkula Murali Krishna Vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 466 & in the case of Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another reported in (2014) 5 SCC 312. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 that the order of recounting was passed after going through the relevant material available on record before the Prescribed Authority. It is further argued that there has been a difference of votes cast in the statement of account prepared by the Matdan Adhikari and the statement of ballot papers prepared by the Returning Officer and the said discrepancy would be resolved only after recounting of votes. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Shama Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2017 (136) RD 130. He also placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by this Court in the case of Godawari Vs. Zubaida and others reported in 2021(150) RD 313 and in case of Usha Devi Vs. Chandrakanta and others reported in 2019( 142) RD 257. He lastly placed latest judgement and order of this Court passed in the case of Sabhia Khatoon Vs. Prescribed Authority and others (Writ C No.44323 of 2023) decided on 11.01.2024. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the order impugned, the relevant findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority reads as follows:- चचुननाव मम ववजययी एववं उपववजययी उम्मयीदवनार कके बयीच ककेवल एक मत कना अवंतर (967-966) हह, जजससके मतगणनना मम तचुवटि ककी सवंभनावनना ्ቚबल हहो जनातयी हह। यनावचकनाकतनाቔኋ दनारना ्ቚस्तचुत वववशि्ቖ सनाቌኚयय एववं गवनावहयय मम मतगणनना मम अवनयवमततनाओवं कके सवंककेत वमलके हह। मतय ककी गणनना मम वहध एववं अमनान्य मतय कके ररककॉरቔኋ मम ववसवंगवतयय ककी सवंभनावननाएवं दृव्ቖगत हहो रहयी हह। यनावचनयी दनारना ्ቚस्तचुत ्ቚपत 46 वतस्तरयीय पवंचनायत वनवनाቔኋचन गनाम पवंचनायत (्ቚधनान) वनवनाቔኋचन कना अवलहोकन वकयना। जजसमम ्ቚना् मतहो मम ओवररनाइवटिवंग ककी गययी हह। गणनना पतक पर उपररलकेखन एववं कनाटिककटि एववं मतहो ककी अनचुवचत स्वयीककवत एववं ननामवंजकरयी स्प्ቖ तचुवटि पररलवቌኌत -गणनना ्ቚवቅኌयना मम वनष्पቌኌतना कके ्ቚवत घहोर सन्दकेह उत्प्ቐ करतना हह । ्ቚत्यचु्ቈरकतनाቔኋ (ववजययी उम्मयीदवनार) दनारना ्ቚस्तचुत कहोई भयी सनाቌኚय इन अवनयवमततनाओवं कहो स्प्ቖ रूप सके खवंवरत करनके मम सቌኌम नहीሻ रहना हह। 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the facts as narrated above in the writ petition, it is clear that the impugned order has been challenged on the basis of averments made in paragraphs No.14, 17, 18 & 19 which reads as follows:- 14. That after the matter being remanded, the Prescribed Authority has now passed the impugned order merely on the ground of suspicion that there is a difference of one vote hence, there is a possibility of mistake in counting which is liable to be corrected and there is no other ground or reason for directing for recounting. 17 That so far order of the recounting is concerned, the same is merely based on surmises and conjunctures and there is no evidence in support of the case of the election petitioner as she has given absolutely incorrect statement of fact in the election petition regarding casting of 3215 votes, whereas, only 3137 votes were casted and all have been counted and there was 74 invalid votes, all the candidates were satisfied with the counting and no claim of recounting was made and election result was duly signed by the election agent of the candidates. 18. That the ground for recounting by the Prescribed Authority that there was 74 invalid votes is wholly the misconceived and merely margin being low is not sufficient for ordering recounting unless unless statement of fact is made in the election petition and the same is proved by the material evidence. 19. That there is no finding at all by the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order that any material irregularity was committed in counting of the votes and except making a vague allegation, the election petitioner has also failed to make any specific allegation regarding declaring a ballot paper having vote in her favour being included in the list of invalid votes. 9. From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition and paragraphs on which reliance have been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that no specific ground whatsoever has been taken that how the findings recorded in the order impugned by the Prescribed Authority is bad in the eyes of law. The law is well settled that the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings of the parties. The parties have to take proper pleadings and establish by adducing evidence that by a particular irregularity/illegality, the result of the election has been "materially affected" and the order is liable to be set aside. 10. From perusal of the facts as narrted above and the pleadings as quoted above, it is clear that no proper pleadings whatsoever contained in the writ petition nor any evidence has been adduced by the counsel for the petitioner to dispute the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority is bad in the eyes of law. 11. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has been sworn by the Pairocar. The aforesaid paragraphs which are quoted above had been sworn on the basis of information received.Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition regarding the mode of reeving the information by the Pairocar. 12. Apart from the same, in the order impugned specific findings have been recorded that after perusal of Prapatra 16 (Form 16), it was found that there was over writing on the same. After going through the same, a decision has been taken by the Prescribed Authority for recounting of the votes. Neither any material brought on record nor any arguments have been raised that how the aforesaid findings are wrong and perverse. 13. Insofar as the judgement cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, they will not help the petition in any manner whatsoever since the question of law involved in the present petition is different with the question involved in the aforesaid judgements. 14. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that order 01.04.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Joint Magistrate, Deoria/respondent No.2is perfect and valid on law and does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. The petition lacks on merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad