MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASSversusRAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

A                        MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS
                                           v.
                         RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

                                 OCTOBER 27, 1999

B             [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND
                            R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]


          Election :

C         Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-R.63(1) and (2)-Election-Votes-
 . Irregularities in counting-Claim for recounting-Grant of-Counting of
    votes in six rounds-Election agent of appellant certifYing that counting in
   first [we rounds proper-Corrections in Form 20 in sixth round not found in
    original Form but only in copies-Application for recount rejected by
D Returning Officer-Election petition before High Court dismissed-Validity
   of-Held, application for recount should contain valid and precise grounds-
   Demand for recount should not be ordinarily granted unless a prima facie
   case regarding error in counting effecting result of returned candidate is
   made out-Since in the instant case, no foundation had been laid down for
   recount, claim rightly rejected.
E
           In the Dasuya Assembly elections, respondent No.1 was declared elected
    by a margin of 53 votes. Appellant, a defeated candidate made an application
    for recount which was rejected by Returning Officer. Thereafter, appellant
    filed an Election Petition which was dismissed by High Court holding that
    the allegations of irregularities were not prima facie established. Hence the
F   present appeal.

          On behalf of appellant it was contended that the Returning Officer
    instead of rejecting the application ought to have ordered recount; and th~1t in
    cases where the victory margin is very small, the claim for a fresh coumting
    should not be summarily brushed aside.
G
          On behalf of respondent No. I, it was contended that the first 5 rounds
    of counting has been certified by the election agent of appellant himself as .
    proper and there could not be any complaint in regard to those rounds; and
    that there was no plea in the petition regarding irregularities in 6th and final
H   round. As to corrections in From 20 it was pointed out that there wer•~ no
                                          148
                    MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA                       149
    corrections in the original form but only in the copies, some errors had crept         A
    in which were corrected. Thus, there was absolutely no basis for High Court
    to interfere with the result of elections.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court

          HELD : 1.1. No foundation had been laid by appellant for recount either          B
    at the stage of filing the application before the Returning Officer or at the
    stage of the filing of the Election Petition before the High Court. Thus,
    appellants's claim for recount has been rightly rejected. (151-D-F)

           1.2. A candidate or his agent has an opportunity to ask for recount at
    two stages: first, before election result is finally declared, and second, by way      C
    of election petition before the High Court. An application under Rule 63(2) of
    the Conduct of Election Rules is to be given immediately after the votes
    secured by each of the candidates is announced under Rule 63(1), but such
    an application cannot be given after the candidate is declared elected under
    Rule 64. If an application is made under Rule 63(2) the Returning Officer              D
    shall decide the matter either by allowing the application in whole or in part
    or may reject in its entirety, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.


-   The application for recount should contain valid precise grounds on which
    the recount is asked for. When the Rules provide for enough opportunity to
    a candidate or his agent to watch the counting process before the result is
    declared and if an objection is raised as to the validity of any ballot paper and      E
    if such objection is rejected improperly, it would afford a basis for recount in
    an election petition. The secrecy of the vote has to be maintained and demand
    for recount should not ordinarily be granted unless the election petitioner
    makes out a prima facie case with regard to error in counting of such
    magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate may be             F
    affected. Smallness of victory margin by itself may not be a sufficient ground
    for recount. However, if prima facie case is made out as to error in counting,
    small margin by which the returned candidate succeeded in the election
    assumes significance, inviting recount. [157-E-F-G-H; 158-A]

          1.3. In the instant case, PW 5, an election agent of B.S.P. candidate has        G
    categorically deposed that election agent of appellant has signed the statements
    of votes counted in token of correctness thereof in appropriate forms. Thus,
    since the appellant's election agent himself had certified that the counting
    was proper in the first five rounds, the allegations made in the complaint
    regarding those rounds cannot stand close scrutiny. Further, regarding the
    6th and final round, no irregularity was pointed out even at the stage of the          H
    150                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
                                                                                     ,_
A   filing of the election petition. The only allegation regarding sixth round was
    of certain corrections made in Form 20. On perusal it was found that 11here
    was no corrections in the original Form 20. It was only in the copies that
    were typed thereafter, that discrepancies crept in, which were corrected. On
    the basis of such copies no case of irregularity in counting has been made
    out by the appellant. (158-C-D-E-F-G-H; 159-A)
B
            M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy & Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 508, referred
    to.

          Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh Swatantar (Dead) & Ors., (1975) 3 SCR
c   331; Nathu Ram Mirdha v. Gordhan Soni & Anr., 38 ELR 16; S. Raghbir
    Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors., [1980) Supp. SCC 53 =AIR
    (1980) SC 1362; R. Narayanan v. Semmalai & Ors., [1980) 2 SCC 537 and
    Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh & Ors., [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 82,
    held inapplicable.

D          2. Though the pleadings regarding recount contained in the election
    petition were based on the information of the election agent of appellant, the
    said election agent was not examined in the case. [159-D-E-F)



E   1998.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3131 of
                                                                                     -
         From the Judgment and Order dated I 6.1.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court in E.P. No. 2 of I 997.

         Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Sanjay M. Tripathi, Ms. Gauri Karuna Das and Ms.
F   Leena Prasad for the Appellant.

         Raju Ramachandran, Neeraj Kr. Jain Manish Mohan and Ugra Shankar
    Prasad for the Respondents.

G           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           RAJENDRA BABU, J. Respondent No. I was declared elected from the
    5 I, Dasuya Assembly Constituency to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in the elec:tion
    held on February 7, 1997. The appellant secured 31,701 votes, while respondent
    No. I secured 31,754 votes. The appellant raised an election dispute by filing
H   a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a declaration that the
          MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 151

     election of respondent No. 1 is void and that the appellant is duly elected as    A
     he has secured majority of the valid votes.

            The appellant in his petition before the High Court set out that the
     counting of votes cast in the said election was conducted in a hall measuring
     78 ft. by 23 ft. There were 14 counting tables in addition to a separate table    B
     for the Returning Officer. All the ballot papers were put in a huge box and
     were mixed and, thereafter, packets of 25 ballot papers in each packet were
     made. In each round 40 packets of 25 ballot papers each were entrusted to
     the staff at the counting tables. The staff consisted of five persons including
     a Supervisor. In the first five rounds 1,000 ballot papers were given on each
     table-and in the sixth round 1,000 ballot papers each were entrusted to the       C
     personnel on 12 tables and only 132 ballot papers were entrusted to the staff
     on the 13th table. The total votes polled were about 82, 176. 1,278 votes were
     rejected. Thereby 80,898 valid votes were counted.

            It is alleged in the petition that the Returning Officer was obliged to
      respondent No. 1 who was a Minister of State in Punjab and the Returning D
     Officer did not heed to the objections raised by the appellant and his
     counting agent orally as well as in writing to the effect that a lot of material
      irregularities took place in counting the ballot papers; that the appellant's
~-
      election agent Shri Hardial Singh made an application to the Returning
     Officer for re-check and recounting of the votes; that the application was also E
     signed by the election agent of the candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party
     (BSP); that the said application was presented at 6 p.m. but was not properly
     considered nor the grievance made therein was duly enquired into by the
     Returning Officer; that although the appellant was assured by the Returning
     Officer that he was seeking a direction from the Election Commission of
     India regarding recount, he announced that the application had been rejected; F
     that about 250 votes had been wrongly rejected as invalid and the counting
     agents of the appellant had objected to the rejection of such votes, but the
     Returning Officer and the counting staff were adamant in not treating them
     as valid votes; that in the second, third and fourth rounds about 150 votes
     had been put in the bundJes of respondent No. I; that the counting staff at G
     table Nos. 4,5,7 and 14 mixed these votes and the packets of valid votes
     containing votes in favour of the appellant were treated as if cast in favour
     of respondent No. I and counted in his favour; that similarly, about 150
     valid papers which were invalid were wrongly counted in favour ofrespondent
     No. I; that, upto fourth round respondent No. I was leading but after the fifth
     and sixth rounds the position had changed and at about 5.30 p.m. lights went H
     152                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A off for about two minutes and during that period the counting staff had
   managed to change the bundles to favour respondent No. I. The appellant
   relied upon some corrections made in Form 20 to support his assertion that
  the votes polled in his favour were reduced and those in favour of respondent
  No. I were increased. In addition, it is alleged, there were irregulariti1:s in
B the counting of the postal ballot papers. The appellant contends that there
  was fencing wire between the counting agents and the supervisory staff and
  the Returning Offic<)r rejected the votes without allowing the appellant and
  his election agent or counting agent to note down the serial number of the
  ballot papers. The appellant maintains that the staff, including the Returning
  Officer, was bent upon declaring respondent No. I as elected by wrongful
C counting of votes in his favour and such improper reception and rejection of
  the votes had materially affected the result of the election. The appellant also
  contends that the Returning Officer did not give reasonable opportunity to
  him in regard to the demand of recounting of votes and the order passed by
  the Returning Officer could not be treated as one duly passed in eye of law
  inasmuch as the same had been passed without due application of mind; that
D the verdict of the electorate is not truly reflected in the result. In the
  circumstances, the appellant in the election petition sought for inspe1:tion
  and scrutiny of the ballot papers in accordance with Rule 93 of the Conduct
  of Election Rules and, after scrutiny and inspection of the ballot papers, he
  sought for a direction for total recount of votes and further reliefs set out
E above.
          In the written statement respondent No.· I raised several preliminary .
    objections as to lack of pleadings to constitute cause of action, absenc:e of
    affidavit in support of the allegations and copy of petition supplied by the
    appellant to him was not true. However, all these objections were either
F   rejected or conceded in favour of the appellant.

         Respondent No. I in his written statement pointed out that he had a
   lead of 2, 15 5 votes at the end of the first round which increased by 1,405
   votes in the second round, 461 votes in the third round and 196 in the fourth
G round. Therefore, at the end of fourth round he was leading by 4, 217 votes.
   At the end of fifth round, the lead was reduced by 1,817 votes. He had thus
   a lead of about 2,400 votes and the election agent of the appellant had
   conceded the defeat and left the hall. The counting had ended, according to
   respondent No. I, by 5 p.m. of February 9, 1997 and the number of votes
 ' polled in favour of each candidate were mentioned on the black-board and
H the total result of six rounds clearly showed that he had secured the maximum
      MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]         153

   number of valjd votes. However, the result was declared on early morning of A
    February 10, 1997. He denies. the allegation of irregularity in the process of
   counting and maintains that the counting was done in orderly and peaceful
   manner. He contends that the candidates or their election agents had accepted
   the validity of the counting at the end of each round and had put their
   signatures on a statement in token of the correctness of the counting and B
   none of the candidates or election agents or for that matter the counting
   agents had raised any objection during the counting; that the State and
   Central Observers who visited the counting hall also did not notice any
   irregularity or illegality in the counting; that the allegations in the election
   petition have been concocted for the purpose of the case by the appellant.
   The respondent denies that he was responsible for the posting of the C
   Returning Officer and nor was he a Minister at the relevant time and he had
   nothing to do with his posting. He alleges that the appellant being head of
   one of the two religious Deras in the constituency in question exercised
   influence not only on the Returning Officer but also on his subordinates. He
   alleges that no objection was raised on February 9, 1997 at 6 p.m. and it
   appears that the same had been fabricated in connivance with the Returning D
   Officer and no application was filed in the presence of respondent No. I. He
   claims that no case had been made out for recount. He denied the allegation
   that 250 votes were wrongly rejected and no objection had been raised to
   such rejection at the time of counting. The appellant was not leading at any
.. stage of the counting. Respondent No. I contends that vague allegations E
   made by the appellant did not disclose any cause of action. He pointed out
   that in the original Form 20 there are no corrections. It is only while preparing
   a certified copy, mistakes have crept in which are -corrected. He denies the
   allegations made by the appellant in regard to postal ballot papers and no
   ground has been made out for recount. He claims that the attempt of the
   appellant is only to seek a roving and fishing enquiry which is not permissible F
   under law.

       Ten witnesses on either side have been examined.

       Sri R.K. Srivastava, PW 2, Under Secretary in the Election Commission G
 of India, produced several papers pertaining to the 51, Dasuya Assembly
 Constituency where the election held on February 7, 1997. He stated that on
 February 10, 1997 a report, the two orders made on the application of Shri
 Hardial Singh, election agent of the appellant and Shri Ujagar Singh, election
 agent of BSP candidate for recounting of votes in respect of the election to
 the said constituency, with documents which are Exhibit PW2/1 to Exhibit H.
    154                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A PW2/6, were sent by the Returning Officer to the Election Commission of
    India along with Proforma for seeking permission for declaration of result. By
    a fax message the Returning Officer was permitted to declare the result of the
    election. The appellant examined himself as PW 3 and he reiterated the
    various contentions made in the petition. Although he was able to identify
B   the signature of Shri Hardial Singh in Exhibit PW3/R-l application for recount,
    he was not able to do so in respect of Exhibit No. PW3/R- l to Exhibit No.
    PW3/R-5 which are statements of votes prepared at the end of counting at
    rounds I to 5. He does admit that neither he nor his counting agent had filed
    objections in writing with regard to the process of counting. Only oral
    objections had been raised which had been rejected by the Returning Officer
C   Shri Ujagar Singh, the election agent of Smt. Swaran Kaur, who was a BSP
    candidate to the election, has been examined as PW 5. His evidence is
    significant in so far as his cross-examination is concerned. He states that
    whatever irregularity had been noticed by them in the counting had been
    stated in the complaint Exhibit PW3/l and apart from that complaint no other
    complaint had been made. He admits that at the end of each round the
D   Returning Officer prepared a statement regarding votes secured by 1~ach
    candidate and the election agents or the counting agent representing different
    candidates signed the said statements in token of the correctness of the votes
    mentioned therein and even he had signed such statements. Similarly, Shri
    Hardial Singh, election agent of the appellant, had also signed such
E   documents and they an: Exhibits PW3/R- l to Exhibit PW/3R-5. Although.
    several other witnesses have been examined in the case their evidence is: not
    material or significant.

           Respondent No. I examined himself as RWI. He reiterated the statement
    made by him in the course of written statement and nothing worthwhile has
F   been elicited from him in the course of cross-examination. PW6, Shri R.K.
    Srivastava, had brought certain records and stated that Shri D.N. Sharan was
    the General Observer and Shri B.K. Bansal was the Observer to keep track
    of the expenditure incurred by the candidates during the election. The
    documents produced by him are marked as Exhibit RW6/l and Exhibit
G   RW6/2. In a Khaki paper cover a video cassette was produced and an
    objection was raised as to the production of the said cassette or admission
    of the same in evidence. PW 8 was examined to show that there was no
    tripping or power failure on February 9, 1997. He stated that there is no entry
    regarding failure of power in their books on that day.

H         On an analysis of the evidence made available the High Court concluded
     MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 155

as follows:-                                                                         A
        (i)    No objection had been raised by any one regarding the process
               of counting at any stage prior to the submission of the complaint,
               Ex.PW3/t.:
        (ii)   The observers had visited the hall where counting was in
               progress. At least one of them had clearly moved from table to        B
               table and checked the ballot papers. There was no evidence of
               protest or complaint having been made (orally or in writing) by
               either any candidate or his agent.
        (iii) The result of counting was being duly recorded by the Returning
               Officer at the end of each round. The petitioner's election agent     c
               Hardial Singh had signed these documents Ex.PW3/R- l to R·
               5. PW5 has categorically stated that Hardial Singh had signed
               these documents. It has also been admitted that there was no
               complaint except that mentioned in Ex. PW3/l. Thus, Mr.
               Hardial Singh was not produced as he was likely to be confronted
               with the documents and his testimony would have given a lie
                                                                                     D
               to the allegations as sought to be made in the petition or during
               the course of evidence. Still further, in the petition, there is no
               allegation regarding any irregularities having been committed
               in the 6th round. In para 19, the only suggestion is that there
               were irregularities during the second to 5th rounds of counting.      E
        (iv) The documentary evidence on record and the video cassette
             belie the suggestion of the petitioner that the counting was not
             properly conducted.
       (v) The report sent by the observers and the order passed by the
           Returning Officer seem to be in conformity with the factual               F
           position at the spot.
       (vi) The evidence on record does not make out any case, much less
            than a case of 'high degree of probability' that there were any
            irregularities so as to justify a recount of the votes. The
            allegations cannot be said to have even prima /acie established.         G
            In fact, there seems to be an attempt to improve upon the
            allegations at every stage.

       Ms. Rani Jethmalani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
urged that the will of the people who have exercised their franchise in an
                                                               ,..
election has got to be appropriately reflected in the result declared by the         H
    156                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   Returning officer. She submitted that where the victory margin is very small,
    as in the present case, the claim for a fresh count should not be summarily
    brushed aside. She strongly urged that if any defect had been pointied out
    in the matter of counting of votes, the same should have been taken note
    of; that many arithmetical inaccuracies may set in as a result of fatigue of
    the counting officials and in such an event the Returning Officer should not
B   stand on prestige but ought to be practical; that he should be fair and realistic
    in appreciating the grievance of a candidate and ought to be liberal in recheck
    and recount. As, after all, fairness in the polls must not only be manifost but
    misgivings thereof should also be cleared at the earliest. She further stressed
    that in the present case the margin of votes in the victory of the respondent
C   is only 53 votes and, therefore, when the appellant's election agent made a
    complaint by way of an application, instead of rejecting the same, the Returning
    Office ought to have ordered recount. She further submitted that in the
    conditions prevalent in the counting hall it was not possible to note down
    the number of the ballot papers or other details thereof. She submitt<:d that
    the Returning Officer has not passed the order on the application for ri~count
D   filed by the appellant's election agent after due application of mind and hardly
    any reasons are set out in rejecting the said application. She has drawn our
    attention to the decisions of this Court in Ba/dev Singh v. Teja Singh
    Swatantar (Dead) & Ors., [1975) 3 SCR 381; Nathu Ram Mirdha v. Gordhan
    Soni & Anr., 38 ELR 16, S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra
E   & Ors., [1980) Supp SCC 53 =AIR 1980 SC 1362, R. Narayanan v. Semma/ai
    & Ors., [1980) 2 SCC 537 and Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh '
    & Ors., [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 82.

           Shri Raju Ramchandran, learned senior advocate appearing for the
    respondents, submitted that in the present case there cannot be any doubt
F   as to the correctness of the counting that has taken place. There were six
    rounds of counting and upto 5th round of counting the election agent of
    the appellant himself certified on the appropriate forms that the counting
    was in order and the same may be announced. In this state of affairs, the only
    examination that has to be done is as to the correctness of 6th round of
G   counting. In regard to 6th round of counting he submitted that there is no
    plea raised in the election petition as to in what manner any defect arose in
    counting, except to state that in the record made in the forms there is some
    scoring and alterations as authenticated by the Returning Officer in the ·
    certified copies of Form 20 supplied to the parties. He submitted that an
    examination of the original of Form 20 will clearly indicate that there are
H   no corrections at all. Corrections, if any, are only in the certified copies
       MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 157

  given to the parties. He further pointed out that the application filed by the        A
  election agent of the appellant after all the counting was over was only a
  desperate attempt made on behalf of the unsuccessful candidate and such an
  application could not have been entertained at all and rightly the Returning
  Officer has rejected the same by giving cogent reasons. Considering the
  smallness of the victory margin the Returning Officer sought for permission           B
  from the Election Commission of India to announce the result which was
  subsequently granted upon which the results were duly announced. While
  seeking permission the Returning Officer reported to the Election Commission
  of India the fact of the appellant having made the complaint and its rejection.
  He, therefore, submitted that there is absolutely no basis for the High Court
  to interfere with the declaration of the result that has been made in the case.       C
  He further pointed out that even after eschewing video cassette from
  consideration there was ample material on record to which reference has been
  made by the learned Judge of the High Court to come to the conclusion that
  there is no irregularity in the counting.

       The sole question therefore to be decided in the present case is as to           D
  whether there has been any irregularity in the counting in any of the rounds
  of counting.

          A candidate or his agent has an opportunity to ask for recount at two
    stages: the first, before election result is finally declared, and the second, by   E
    way of election petition before the High Court. An application under Rule
   63(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules is to be given immediately after the
   votes secured by each of the candidates is announced under Rule 63( I), but
   such an application cannot be given after the candidate is declared elected
   under Rule 64. If an application is made under Rule 63(2) th~ Returning
   Officer shall decide the matter either by allowing the application in whole          F
   or in part or may reject in its entirety, if it appears to him to be frivolous
   or unreasonable. The decision shall be in writing containing reasons therefor.
   The application for recount should contain valid precise grounds on which
   the recount is asked for. When the Rules provide for enough opportunity to
   a candidate or his agent to watch the counting process before the result is          G
   declared and if an objection is raised as to the validity of any ballot paper
   and if such objection is rejected improperly, it would afford a basis for
   recount in an election petition. The secrecy of the vote has to be maintained
   and demand for recount should not ordinarily be granted unless the election
· .petitioner makes out a prima facie case with regard to error in counting of
   such magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate may         H
     158                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A be affected. Smallness of victory margin by itself may not be a sufficient
    ground for recount. However, if prima facie case is made out as to error in
    counting, small margin by which the returned candidate succe~ded in the
    election assumes significance, inviting recount.

          We will not place any reliance upon the video cassette produced before
B   the High Court inasmuch as no evidence is adduced as to who recorded the
    cassette, nor does any witness speak to the veracity of recording, much less
    is there any material as to whether any editing was done.

           PW5 Ujagar Singh is an important witness. He acted as an election
    agent of Swam Kaur who was a B.S.P. candidate who contested in the
C election. He stated that the respective counting agents had signed statc:ments
 ·- of votes counted in token of correctness thereof in the appropriate forms as
    Ex.PW-3/R-l to Ex. PW-3/R-5 and the same bears his signature as well as that
    of Hardial Singh the election agent of the appellant. However, he maintained
    in the course of his evidence that there were irregularities in the counting. In
D the light of the certificate given by them in Ex.PW-3/R-l to Ex.PW-3/R-5 it is
    clear that there could not have been any complaint in regard to the first five
    rounds of counting. The complaint, if any, stood contradicted by this 1noting
    made by them on the said exhibits. Therefore, on such material the High Court
    rightly rejected the case put forth on behalf of the appellant that there was
    any defect in the counting of first five rounds. In none of the decisions relied
E upon by the learned counsel for the appellant such a situation had arisen.
    Therefore, those decisions can have no bearing upon the present case at all
    and in our view there is no need to refer to any one of them.

          So far as round six, which is the last and the final round, is concc:rned,
F   the charge made by the appellant at Para 6 of the petition. is in the following
                              ;
    terms:-                    )




            "Round no. 6, serial no. 79/9 i.e., table no. 9, there is a cutting on
            the votes secured by the petitioner as 462. None of these cuttings,
            alterations has been authenticated by the Returning Officer or any
G           other officer concerned at any stage."

          We have seen the original Form 20 and we do not find any correc:tions
    made therein. It is only in the copies, that were typed thereafter, that
    discrepancies have crept in, which have been sought to be corrected and _
    copies thereof are furnished to the appellant. On the basis of such copies no
H   case could have been made out by the appellant. Thus there is no plea at all
     MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS v. RAMESH CHANDRA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] J59

so far as round 6 is concerned pointing out any discrepancy or irregularity         A
in the matter of counting. Hence we find no case is made out by the appellant
in the course of the petition. In the absence of any pleading thereof, we find
it difficult to accept the case put forth by the appellant that there was any
irregularity in the 6th round of counting.

       Now we shall advert to the contention put forth as to the manner in          B
which the Returning Officer dealt with the complaint made and claim for
recount. The only ground stated for counting of votes is that his staff had
done many wrong things in spite of objections and that his staff had mixed
votes cast in their favour with that of the Congress candidate. The allegation
made in this complaint so far as the first five rounds are concerned cannot         C
stand close scrutiny for the reasons already stated that the appellant's election
agent himself had certified that the counting was proper in those rounds. If
that is so, and when no irregularity is pointed out even at the stage of the
filing of the election petition in the 6th round, were hardly find there is any
substance in the complaint made and the Returning Officer has rightlv rejected
the same stating there is no substance in the application. In a somewhat            D
similar case in M Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy & Ors., [ 1999] 4 SCC 508,
where an application for recount was made to the Returning Officer stating
that sufficient irregularities had taken place in deciding the votes and lot of
mischief had been committed by the staff at the time of counting and the
difference of margin is as low as I 00 votes this court characterised these         E
allegations as hopelessly vague and the Returning Officer rightly rejected the
complaint holding that the facts disclosed in the application would not justify
the recount. The situation in this case is not any better than in that case.

       We may further advert to one important feature of this case namely that
pleadings regarding the counting are contained in para 15,16,18 to 23, 30           p
and 34 of the petition which are based on the information received from the
election agent Hardial Singh, but significantly Hardial Singh has not been
examined in the case at all. Thus we find the appellant's case to be hopelessly
bad and no foundation had been laid for recount either at the stage of filing
the application before the Returning Officer or at the stage of the filing of
the election petition before the High Court much le~s before us.                    G
      In the result this appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances
of the case there shall be no order as to costs

S.V.K.                                                      Appeal dismissed.