Allahabad High Court
Tekchand vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 26 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148050 Reserved on 21.07.2025 Delivered on 26.08.2025 Court No. - 75 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31255 of 2022 Petitioner :- Tekchand Respondent :- State of U.P. and 6 others Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned A.A.G. for the State assisted by Shri Jai Babu Kesarwani as well as Sri Vivek Saran along with Sri Ganesh Kumar Verma learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Facts:
2. The facts of the case as projected from the record are that the Government of Uttar Pradesh proceeded to notify Village Panchayat elections through out the State in April, 2021. The nomination for the office of Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura commenced on 18.04.2021. The writ petitioner (Tek Chand son of Jai Pal) along with the fourth respondent (Rajvir @ Rajveer son of Sri Badle) and the proforma respondents no. 5 Sri Jitendra son of Yadram, respondent no. 6, Sri Jai Pal son of Sri Beni, respondent no. 7, Sri Yadram son of Sri Ram Sahai participated in the panchayat elections of Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura. The counting of the votes for the office of Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura was conducted on 02.05.2021. The details of the votes cast and the votes secured by the respective candidates in first and second round is being quoted hereinunder.-
Name of candidates
Received votes in first round
Received votes in second round
Total received votes
Tekchand(petitioner)
94
285
379
Rajveer(Resp. No. 4)
131
243
374
Jitendra(Resp. No. 5)
61
48
109
Jaipal (Resp. No. 6)
3
3
6
Yadram (Resp. No. 7)
1
No vote
1
Cancelled Votes
51
32
83
Total
341
611
952
3. That since the writ petitioner secured 379 votes while the fourth respondent received 374 votes in the elections of the Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, thus, the writ petitioner was declared winning candidates by 5 votes on 03.05.2021. A certificate to the said extent was also issued on the said date.
4. The fourth respondent being aggrieved against declaring the writ petitioner to be the winning candidate preferred Election Petition No. 01350 of 2021 (Rajvir Vs. Tek chand and 3 others) before the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, under Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
5. Post issuance of the notice, the writ petitioner preferred its objection and/written statement on 03.08.2021. A replication came to be preferred by the fourth respondent on 23.09.2021. The fourth respondent was asked to produce evidence and he produced himself as PW 1 and filed his examination-in-chief before the court of Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura on 23.09.2021. The testimony of PW 1 was recorded on 08.10.2021 and one Lokmani was produced as PW 2, his testimony was recorded on 12.10.2021. After completion of the plaintiff’s (fourth respondent) evidence, the matter was fixed for defendant’s (writ petitioner) evidence who in response thereto one Sri Ratan was produced as DW 1 and his testimony was recorded on 12.10.2021 and the writ petitioner produced himself as DW 2 and his testimony was recorded on 12.10.2021.
6. Thereafter, post completion of the evidence of both the parties, the Election Petition No. 01350 of 2021 came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2021 by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Division Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura.
7. A Civil Revision No. 38 of 2020 came to be preferred by the fourth respondent on 02.11.2021 assailing the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura dismissing the election petition. The writ petitioner had put in appearance before the court of District and Session Judge, Mathura in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2020 while filing his objection/written statement 23.08.2022.
8. The Civil Revision No. 38 of 2021 came to be allowed on 22.09.2022 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura whereby the judgment and order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, Mathura in Election Petition No. 01350 of 2021 was set aside and Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil, Chhata, District Mathura was directed for re-counting of the cancelled vote for the office of Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura.
9. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition came to be preferred seeking following reliefs.-
I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by respondent no. 2.
II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in functioning of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of village Panchayat- Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil- Chhata, District Mathura.
III) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
IV) Award the cost of the writ petition.”
10. The writ petition came to be allowed on 28.01.2023 wherein the following orders were passed (relevant extract) is quoted hereinbelow.-
“11. I have carefully perused statement of witnesses recorded by Election Tribunal.
12. Rajbeer, election petitioner has stated in his statement that he has no knowledge about number of votes polled in favour of each candidate as well as number of votes cancelled. He was not present at the time of counting and averments in election petition were based on instructions given by her agent whereas declaration made in election petition is contrary that averments made in election petition were based on his knowledge as well as on legal advice.
13. Respondent No.2 Lokmani who was agent of election petitioner has stated that written complaint made by him was not received, however, nothing has come on record that there were material irregularities in recounting or averments made in election petition were true.
14. Election Tribunal has considered entire material on record and found that essential requirement for recounting that there must be a case that irregularity was committed in counting should not be based on a vague allegation. In revision petition, Revisional Authority though noted law on recounting in paragraph 15 of impugned order, however, only on ground that, complain during counting was not noted, number of votes rejected were much more than winning margin and only in order to give confidence to voters, impugned order was passed. Relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereinafter -:
“इस प्रस्तुत मामले में याचिका में यह स्पस्ट अभिवचन है कि मतपत्रों को निरस्त करने में अनियमितता बरती गयी है। इस अभिवचन के समर्थन में मतगणना के समय उपस्थित याची के एजेन्ट का साक्ष्य है और मतगणना के समय विरोध दर्ज कराने और विरोध के बाद भी तत्समय पुनः मतगणना न करने तथा पुलिस का भय दिखाने के साक्ष्य के प्रति विपक्षी के एजेन्ट की पुष्टिकारक प्रतिपरीक्षा भी है। उपरोक्त स्थिति व बहुत कम अन्तर से जीत होना। तथा जीत के अन्तर के सापेक्ष कई गना मतों का निरस्त होना, निरस्त मतों के निरीक्षण की बावत अधिकारी की प्रथम दृष्टया संतुष्टि के लिए पर्याप्त है। मुख्य आरोप निरस्त मतों के गलत निरस्तीकरण से सम्बन्धित है, इसलिए निरस्त मतों का पुनः निरीक्षण और पुनः गणना मतदान की गोपनीयता को प्रभावित करने वाली नहीं है। ऐसा निरीक्षण और ऐसी गणना मतदान के प्रति विश्वसनीयता और न्याय के प्रति विश्वास के लिए आवश्यक है। मात्र निरस्त मतों का निरीक्षण और गणना याची को कोई ऐसा आधार उपलब्ध कराने में सक्षम प्रतीत नहीं हो रहा है कि वह पूरे चुनाव को ही शून्य घोषित कराने के लिए किसी साक्ष्य की खोज कर सके। निष्कर्षतः यह प्रस्तुत प्रकरण निरस्त मतों के निरीक्षण और पुनः गणना के लिए आवश्यक विधिक कसौटियों पर सफल साबित हो रहा है।”
15. Above referred finding are based only on a vague assertion that a written complaint was not accepted, however, there is no documentary proof to it, even it is deemed that written complaint was refused to be received, there must be material facts supported by evidence that irregularity was committed.
16. As discussed above, witnesses have no knowledge even about number of votes declared invalid and how it was wrongly declared invalid. Therefore, in absence of such specific assertion with a support in their evidence, as discussed above, Revisional Court has exercised its jurisdiction to recounting only on basis of roving inquiry without any substantial material supported by statements by election petitioner or her agent and has erred in disturbing the well reasoned order passed by Election Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.09.2022 is set aside. Petition stands allowed.”
11. Assailing the order dated 28.01.2023 passed in the writ petition, the fifth respondent preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8150 of 2023 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.05.2024 proceeded to pass the following orders.-
“1. The petitioner and respondent No.1 contested the election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Majhoi Block Chhata, Mathura District, Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No.1 secured 379 votes as against 374 votes secured by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was consequently declared elected by a margin of 5 votes. It appears that 34 votes were declared invalid. The Election Tribunal accepted the petitioner’s prayer for recounting of the votes but the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, vide the impugned judgment, has set aside the same.
2. We have heard gone through the averments in the Election Petition and the reply thereto.
3. Before we proceed with the matter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to re-count the votes in the presence of Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Advocate (M.No. 9999110030), who is hereby appointed as the Court Commissioner. The re-counting shall be videographed by the Court Commissioner. The learned Court Commissioner shall also videograph the invalid declared votes. The result in a sealed cover, duly signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Court Commissioner ‘as well as the petitioner and respondent No.1 (without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and respondent No.1 to submit their respective objections), shall be produced before us produced before us on the next date of hearing.
4. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the Court Commissioner, which shall include the fee, boarding and transportation charges. The petitioner shall pay the above-stated to amount to the Court Commissioner within three weeks.
5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to contact the Court Commissioner and fix a date for recounting of votes after the parliamentary elections are over, i.e., in the first week of July, 2024.
6. The Advocate-on-Record representing the petitioner and respondent No.1 shall provide the paperbook to the Court Commissioner within one week.
7. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, Uttar Pradesh for information and necessary compliance.
8. Post the matter for hearing on 15.07.2024.”
12. Pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8150 of 2023 recounting was conducted on 02.07.2024. Thereafter, a report of the Court Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 08.07.2024 came to be submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same is quoted hereinunder.-
“Report of the Court Commissioner
1. That, vide Order dated 13.05.2024 I have received warrant of appointment appointing me as Court Commissioner and directed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura to recount the votes of the election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Majhoi Block Chhata, Mathura District, Uttar Pradesh in my presence and video graph recounting of votes and also videograph the invalid votes.
2. Pursuant to the said Order, the recounting was scheduled by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as “SDM”) on 02.07.2024 at 1:00 pm at SDM Court, Tehsil Office, Chhata, Uttar Pradesh. The Ld. SDM issued Notice dated 12.06.2024 informing all the candidates about the scheduled recounting of votes.
A true copy of the notice dated 12.06.2024 issued by the SDM is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-1 [Page no.9].
3. The following candidates had contested for the election for the post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Majhoi Block Chhata, Mathura District, Uttar Pradesh:
i. Rajvir, S/o Shri Badle
ii. Tekchand, S/o Shri Jaipal
iii. Jitendra, S/o Shri Yadram
iv. Jaipal, S/o Shri Beni
v. Yadram, S/o Shri Ramsahai
4. That, I along with a team of videographer Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr.Mohd. Danish arrived at the SDM’s Court, Tehsil Office, Chhata, Uttar Pradesh at around 12:00 PM for the scheduled recounting of the votes. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate along with the Block Development Officers, Executive Officer and other gazetted officers were present at the venue. The following authorized representatives/agents of the Candidates were present for the recounting:
1. Rajvir was represented by Mr. Lokmani
2. Tekchand was represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar
3. Jitendra was represented by Adv. Revati Raman Sharma
4. Jaipal was represented by Adv. Dinesh Kumar.
5. Yadram was absent for the recounting of votes.
5. The recounting was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata in the presence of all the authorized representatives of all candidates (except Yadram), and with the help of administrative staff, the Block Divisional Officer.. Chaumuha, and Executive Office of Nagar Palika Kosí.
6. The votes were brought in a sealed sack from the treasury by the Block Development Officer, Chhata accompanied by police personnels. The sack was secured with a knot and exhibited an unbroken seal. The seal on the sack was duly checked by all the parties present at the relevant time of the commission and the same was duly videographed.
7. That, inside the main sealed sack was another sack which was further secured with a knot and a seal. This seal, too, was checked duly by the parties present at the relevant time of the commission and videographed before opening. No candidate or their agents raised any objection with regard to seal on either of the sacks.
8. Thereafter, the seal of second sack was broken open. The second sack contained two bundles of votes and some envelopes which had papers / forms related to initial counting process. It is pertinent to note that these bundles had a seal on them which were thoroughly checked by the parties.
9. That, after all due processes were done, the scheduled recounting of votes commenced at around 1.15 PM. The first bundle was checked for seals which was verified by all the parties and opened for recounting. The said bundle contained smaller packs of votes which were segregated candidate-wise. There was a separate bundle for invalid votes as well. The first bundle contained a total of 611 votes. Out of the 611 votes in first bundle, 32 votes were kept in the bundle of invalid votes.
10. Upon recounting, out of the 32 votes, which were earlier declared as invalid, it was found that 29 votes were correctly declared as invalid. However 3 votes were valid and incorrectly declared as invalid. Out of these three votes, two votes were casted in favour of Rajvir, S/o Shri Badle and one vote was casted in favour of Jitendra, S/o Shri Yadram. Additionally, out of the votes which were earlier declared as valid, 17 votes were found to be invalid upon recounting. All the said 17 invalid votes were found in the bundle of valid votes of Tekchand. These 17 votes, upon scrutiny were removed from the bundle of votes of Tekchand and a separately, bundle of the 17 invalid votes was made.
11. Subsequently, the seal of second bundle was checked and upon verification by all the parties, was opened. This bundle too contained smaller packs of votes which were segregated candidate-wise and also had a separate pack of invalid votes. Recounting of this bundle was concluded and this bundle contained a total of 341 votes. Out of the 341 votes in first bundle, 51 votes were kept in the bundle of invalid votes.
12. No discrepancy was found between the result of first counting and recounting of votes. The number of invalid votes were the same in both counting and recounting.
13. After recounting of votes, it was found that the candidates secured votes as follows:
Name of Candidates
Votes in First Round
Votes in Second Round
Total Votes
Rajvir @ Rajveer
(Petitioner)
(Symbol- Kitaab)
50+50+50+50+43(+2)=245
50+50+31=131
376
Tekchand
(Resp. No. 1)
(Symbol- Kanni)
35+45(-5)+50+50+48(-2)+40(-10)=268
50+44=94
362
Jitendra
(Resp. No. 2)
Symbol- Anaaj Osata Hua Kisaan)
48+1=49
50+11=61
110
Jaipal
(Resp. No. 3)
(Symbol- Imli)
3
3
6
Yadram
(Resp. No. 4)
Symbol- Car)
0
1
1
Invalid votes found in earlier invalid vote bundle
32-3=29
51
80
Invalid votes found during recounting
17
–
17
Total
611
341
952
Total no. of votes casted – 952
Total no. of invalid votes after recounting-97
14. After recounting of votes was thoroughly concluded, the bundles of both, the first and the second round, were resealed and placed in the sack. A separate pack of invalid votes was created kept with other votes recounted in the first and second round respectively. The inner and outer sacks were resecured and resealed. The resecuring and resealing of the bundles and the sacks was done in the presence of the authorized representatives of the candidates.
15. The possession of the sealed sack was handed over by the Ld. SDM to the BDO Chhata, which was then taken by the BDO to the Treasury for safekeeping.
16. Upon completion of recounting of votes, I prepared a spot panchnama dated 02.07.2024, recording the commission of the recounting of votes and the same was signed by the candidates/authorized representatives as witnesses.
A true copy of the spot panchnama dated 02.07.2024 recording the said event of recounting is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-2 [Page no. 10 to 141.
17. The entire process of opening the sealed sacks, opening of each bundle and the recounting of each and every vote was duly videographed and the video is saved in a pen drive and handed over in a sealed envelope to the registry of this Hon’ble Court.
Date: 08.07.2024
New Delhi
Yugandhara Pawar Jha
Court-Commissioner/
Advocate-on-Record”
13. On 15.07.2024, the following orders was passed.-
“1. In compliance of the order dated 13.05.2023, the learned court Commissioner(s) have submitted their respective report(s) along with pen drive(s) in sealed cover(s). Re-counting result has been received in SLP© No. 8150/2023 also in sealed cover.
2. Learned court Commissioner in SLP (C) No. 5339/2023 has handed over the result of re-counting in sealed cover in the Court. The same be taken on record.
3. The Registry is directed to open the sealed covers and provide hard as well as soft copies of the reports as well as the re-counting results to the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The objections, if any, be filed within this week.
5. Post the matters for hearing on 22.07.2024.”
14. Thereafter, post service of the report of the Court Commissioner dated 08.07.2024, the objections came to be preferred by the writ petitioners who were respondents in the Special Leave Petition on 20.07.2024 (contents whereof is quoted in the later portion of the judgment).
15. On 22.07.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to pass the following order.-
3. Similarly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to bring the original ballot
papers, which have been declared invalid during recounting, on the
date fixed.
4. Standing counsel for the CBI will remain present on the next date of hearing to assist us in resolving the above-mentioned
questions.
5. Registry to convey this order to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrates concerned through e-mail and through the office of the
jurisdictional District and Sessions Judge for information and
compliance. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) will also inform
about the same.
6. Post these matters on 29.07.2024.”
16. On 12.08.2024, the following orders were passed.-
1. There are a total 97 invalid ballot papers out
of which 17 are those of double stamping/thumb
impression etc., which were found to be invalid by
the learned Court Commissioner.
2. Let the CFSL examine and submit two separate
reports i.e., in respect of 17 invalid ballot papers
and the other 80 invalid ballot papers.
3. Director, CFSL, Delhi shall submit the reports
in both the matters within four weeks.
4. Post the matters for hearing on 09.09.2024.”
17. On 30.08.2024, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory tendered his report, the relevant extract of the report read as under.-
“Form No. CFSL-DFSS-DELHI-DOC-03
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY
(ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory)
Directorate of Forensic Science Services
Ministry of Home Affairs
Block No. IV, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Report No. CFSL/DELHI/1612/QD/556/24
Dated: 30-08-2024
“Examination Report”
To
The Registrar,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
Court No.4. New Delhi-110001
1. Reference: Verification of Seal Impressions in SLP (C) No. 8150/2023 in case Sangita Vs State of UP.
2. Details of Forwarding Memo:
The case under reference was received in this office on 12-08-2024 vide letter No. Nil Dated 12-08-2024 for forensic examination and expert opinion.
3. Date of Commencement of Examination 13-08-2024.
4. Description of Articles/Exhibits:-
Questioned Documents:
Questioned documents comprising of 97 ballot papers containing Seal impressions now marked as X1 to X34 and Y1 to Y30 [Details of the ballot papers and markings are as per Table 1 and fable 2 below (for X1 to X34) and Table 3 & Table 4 (for Y1 to Y30) below.]
5. Laboratory Procedure, Experiment & Analysis: –
The documents of this case have been examined carefully with the help of available tools in this laboratory such as: VSC 8000, Stereo-zoom Microscope, lenses of different magnification etc. by applying the test of superimposition and examination/analysis of ink, arrived at the following opinion.
6. Result of Examination: –
I. On scientific examination and inter-se comparison of the seal impressions marked X1 to X34 on the 17 ballot papers and Y1 to Y30 on the 80 ballot papers under various light arrangements such as: incident light, oblique light, transmitted light, Ultra-Violet rays, Infra-Red rays and using various scientific equipments like: VSC-8000, Stereo Zoom Microscope and lenses of different magnification following observations per Table 1 and Table 2 (for X1 to X34) and Table 3 & Table 4 (for Y1 toY30 and Thumb impressions) have been made:
i. Table 1:
S.
No.
Ballot Paper
number
Markings given to seal Impressions
Observations
1
6BB 7636430
X3 & X4
X3 & X4- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure (Fig. 1)
2
6BB 7636531
X5 & X6
X5 & X6- Tally on superimposition: A small part of the Seal impressions marked X6 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of of superimposition- VSC print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.2)
3
6BB 7636592
X7 & X8
X7 & X8- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 3)
4
6BB 7636598
X9 & X10
X9 & X10- Tally on superimposition- A small part of the Seal impressions marked X10 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of of superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.4)
5
6BB 7636626
X11 & X12
X11 & X12- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 5)
6
6BB 7635677
X13 & X14
X13 & X14- Tally on superimposition- A small part of the Seal impressions marked X14 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of of superimposition- VSC print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.6)
7
6BB 7635678
X15 & X16
X15 & X16- Tally on superimposition VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 7)
8
6BB 7636692
X17 & X18
X17 & X18- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 8)
A small part of Seal impression X17 is smudged.
9
6BB 7636698
X19 & X20
X19 & X20- Tally on superimposition: A small part of the Seal impressions marked X16 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of of superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig.9)
10
6BB 7636731
X21 & X22
X21 & X22- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 10)
11
6BB 7636783
X23 & X24
X23 & X24- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig.11)
12
6BB 7636790
X25 & X26
X25 & X26- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure | (Fig. 12)
13
6BB 7636793
X27 & X28
X27 & X28- Tally on superimposition- A small part of seal impression X27 is smudged – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig. 13)
14
6BB 7636874
X29 & X30
X29 & X30- Tally on superimposition: A small part of the Seal impressions marked X30 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of of superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I (Fig.14).
15
6BB 7636886
X31 & X32
X31 & X32- Tally on superimposition- VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig 15).
16
6BB 7636897
X33 & X34
X33 & X34- Tally on superimposition. A small part of the Seal impressions marked X34 is not visible and the same has been duly ‘considered’ during test of superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure 1 (Fig. 16).
The seal impressions mentioned at S. No. 1 to 16 in the Table l above reveals similarities in design, size, shape and relative location of various strokes to the extent of their superimposition. Collective consideration of all these features leads me to the opinion that the seal impressions marked X3 & X4; X3 & X5; X7 & X8; X9 & X10; X11 & X12; X13 & X14; XI5 & XI6; X17 & X18; X19 & X20; X21 & X22; X23 & X24; X25 & X26; X27 & X28; X29 & X30; X31 & X32 and X33 & X34 tally on their inter-se comparison.
ii. It has not been possible to compare the seal impressions marked X1 & X2 for the manifest reasons mentioned under the column titled “Observations” in the Table 2 below
Table 2:
S.
No.
Ballot Paper
number
Markings given to seal Impressions
Observations
1
6BB 7636409
X1 & X2
Lack of detail and clarity in the seal impressions marked X1 & X2, hence superimposition with X1 & X2 not done.
iii. Table 3:
S. No.
Ballot Paper number
Markings given to seal impressions
Observations/Remarks
1
6BB 7636441
Y6, Y7 & Y8
Y6 & Y7-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 18)
Y6 & Y8-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 19)
Y7 & Y8-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 20)
2
6BB 7636573
Y11 & Y12
Y11 & Y12-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 21) – part of seal mark is not visible in Y12
3
6BB 7636857
Y17 & Y18
Y & Y18-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 22)
4
6BB 7636035
Y20 & Y 21
Y20 & Y21-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 22)
5
6BB 7636245
Y25 & Y 26
Y25 & Y26-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 24)
6
6BB 7636291
Y27 & Y28
Y27 & Y28-Tally on superimposition – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Anneuxre I (Fig. 25)
The seal impressions mentioned at S. No. 1 to 6 in the Table 3 above reveals similarities in design, size, shape and relative location of various strokes to the extent of their superimposition. Collective consideration of all these features leads me to the opinion that the seal impressions marked Y6, Y7 & Y8; Y11 & Y12; Y17 & Y18; Y20 & Y21; Y25 & Y26 and Y27 & Y28 tally on their inter-se comparison.
ii. It has not been possible to compare the seal impressions marked Y1; Y2; Y5; Y9; Y10; Y13; Y14; Y15 & Y16; Y19; Y22; Y23; Y24; Y29; Y30 along with ballot paper numbers (as seen in Table 4) for the manifest reasons mentioned under the column titled “Observations” in the Table 4 below-
Table 4:
S. No.
Ballot Paper number
Markings given to seal impressions
Observations1
1
6BB 7635667
Y1
Contains both seal and thumb impressions, but examination done on seal impression.
2
6BB 7635663
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
3
6BB 7635656
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
4
6BB 7636006
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
5
6BB 7636032
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
6
6BB 7635684
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
7
6BB 7635690
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
8
6BB 7635694
Y2
Seal impression is completely smudged
9
6BB 7636410
Y3 & Y4
Lack of details and clarity in the seal impressions marked Y3 & Y4, hence superimposition could not be done.
10
6BB 7636417
Contains Thumb impressions
11
6BB 7636437
Contains Thumb impressions
12
6BB 7636439
Y5
Contains one seal and one thumb impression
13
6BB 7636412
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
14
6BB 7636321
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
15
6BB 7636463
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
16
6BB 7636469
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
17
6BB 7636468
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
18
6BB 7636487
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
19
6BB 7636488
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
20
6BB 7636492
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
21
6BB 7636566
Nil
One seal impressions and one thumb impressions
22
6BB 7636568
Nil
One seal impression – VSC 8000 print enclosed per Annexure I
23
6BB 7636637
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
24
6BB 7636693
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
25
6BB 7636756
Y13
Contains Thumb impressions along with seal impressions
26
6BB 7636797
Y14, Y15 & Y16
Y14 & Y15 partially visible and Y16 multiple seal impressions
27
6BB 7636684
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
28
6BB 7636901
Y19
Only one seal impressions
29
6BB 7636037
Y22
Partially visible Seal impressions
30
6BB 7636048
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
31
6BB 7636051
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
32
6BB 7636052
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
33
6BB 7636065
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
34
6BB 7636067
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
35
6BB 7636069
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
36
6BB 7636070
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
37
6BB 7636078
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
38
6BB 7636083
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
39
6BB 7636085
Nil
Multiple seal impressions & one thumb impression
40
6BB 7636099
Nil
One thumb impression
41
6BB 7636110
Y24
One seal impression
42
6BB 7636112
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
43
6BB 7636117
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
44
6BB 7636118
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
45
6BB 7636127
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
46
6BB 7636128
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
47
6BB 7636141
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
48
6BB 7636146
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
49
6BB 7636155
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
50
6BB 7636156
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
51
6BB 7636157
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
52
6BB 7636185
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
53
6BB 7636188
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
54
6BB 7636189
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
55
6BB 7636190
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
56
6BB 7636191
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
57
6BB 7636192
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
58
6BB 7636197
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
59
6BB 7636204
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
60
6BB 7636205
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
61
6BB 7636208
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
62
6BB 7636213
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
63
6BB 7636217
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
64
6BB 7636218
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
65
6BB 7636220
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
66
6BB 7636230
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
67
6BB 7636233
Nil
Contains part of Thumb impressions
68
6BB 7636250
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
69
6BB 7636255
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
70
6BB 7636256
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
71
6BB 7636292
Contains Thumb impressions
72
6BB 7636884
Nil
Contains Thumb impressions
73
6BB 7636327
Y29
Seal impression partially visible
74
6BB 7636249
Y30
Seal impression with minimal visibility
II. It has not been possible to opine whether the multiple seal impressions, available on each of the ballot papers mentioned in Tables 1 & 3 above, were put at the same time or at different times.
Note:-
1. This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written approval of Director, CFSL, New Delhi except the Judicial Courts and investigating authorities related with the case.
2. The report is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C.”
18. Finally, the SLP (C) No. 8150 of 2023 came to be decided on 07.11.2024 while passing the following orders.-
“1. Leave granted.
2………..
3………..
4. In the second appeal, arising out of SLP (C) No. 8150
of 2023, the appellant and respondent no. 1 contested the
election of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Majhoi, Block
Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Respondent no. 1
was declared elected with 379 votes, whereas the appellant
got 374 votes. Apart from the votes cast in favour of the
other contestants, 85 votes were declared invalid.
5. Consequently, the appellant filed an election
petition. The Election Tribunal allowed the election
petition and directed for recounting of votes, but that
order was set aside by the High Court, giving rise to this
appeal.
6. Both these Special Leave Petitions were taken up for
hearing on 13.05.2024 when the following direction was
made:-
“SLP(C)No.5339/2023
……..
SLP(C) No(s).8150/2023
…
3. Before we proceed with the matter, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to re-
count the votes in the presence of Ms.
Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Advocate
(M.No.9999110030), who is hereby appointed as
the Court Commissioner. The re-counting shall
be videographed by the Court Commissioner.
The learned Court Commissioner shall also
videograph the invalid declared votes. The
result in a sealed cover, duly signed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Court
Commissioner as well as the petitioner and
respondent No.1 (without prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner and respondent No.1
to submit their respective objections), shall
be produced before us on the next date of
hearing.
4. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the
Court Commissioner, which shall include the
fee, boarding and transportation charges. The
petitioner shall pay the above-stated amount
to the Court Commissioner within three weeks.
5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to contact the Court Commissioner and fix a
date for recounting of votes after the
parliamentary elections are over, i.e., in
the first week of July, 2024.
6. The Advocate-on-Record representing the
petitioner and respondent No.1 shall provide
the paperbook to the Court Commissioner
within one week.
7. The Registry is directed to forward a copy
of this order to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Chhata, Uttar Pradesh for
information and necessary compliance….”
7. In deference to the above stated order, the learned
Court Commissioners had submitted their self-stated,
well-reasoned reports. However, on a perusal of those
reports, it was observed on 22.07.2024 that the following
two issues arose for determination regarding votes which
were declared to be invalid due to two stamps being made on
the same ballot:-
(i) Whether the seal used by a voter on two places of
one ballot paper was one or two separate seals?
(ii) Whether both seals were used at the same time or
different times?
8. In order to determine these questions, the ballot
papers which were declared invalid during the counting in
the presence of the Court Commissioner, were thus directed
to be produced in original so that the same could be sent
to a forensic laboratory for examination.
9. The disputed (invalid) votes in respect of both the
elections were produced on 29.07.2024 and thereafter the
following order was passed by this Court on 12.08.2024:
“SLP(C) No. 5339/2023
………….
SLP(C) No. 8150/2023
1. There are a total 97 invalid ballot papers
out of which 17 are those of double
stamping/thumb impression etc., which were
found to be invalid by the learned Court
Commissioner.
2. Let the CFSL examine and submit two
separate reports i.e., in respect of 17
invalid ballot papers and the other 80
invalid ballot papers.
3. Director, CFSL, Delhi shall submit the
reports in both the matters within four
weeks.
4. Post the matters for hearing on
09.09.2024.”
10. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL),
Ministry of Home Affairs sent two reports dated 30.08.2024
in a sealed cover, which were directed on 09.09.2024 to be
opened and to be supplied to learned counsel for the
respective parties.
11. It is apparent from the CFSL reports that the double
stamp on some of the ballot papers which were declared invalid are with the same seal. However, the CFSL has not
been able to respond as to whether both the stamps have
been placed at the same time or at different times.
12. Thus, the efforts made by this Court to resolve the
election dispute through the measure of recounting was not
successful, in the sense that a fair opportunity to the
parties with respect to the validity of most of the ballot
papers declared as invalid, is required to be accorded.
With a view to determine their validity/invalidity, it
seems that the Court would be required to resort to methods
other than the CFSL reports.
13. Having regard to the fact that the elections were held
in the year 2021 and there is a fixed tenure of five years,
we are of the view that it is not expedient and desirable
to send the matter back to the Election Tribunal.
Therefore, a question of fresh determination of validity of
votes declared as invalid can be taken by the High Court in
a time bound manner.
14. For the reasons aforestated, we allow these appeals to
the extent that the impugned judgments of the High Court
are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High
Court to decide the same afresh, taking into consideration
the reports of the learned Court Commissioners, the CFSL
reports, and any other report that may be relied upon by
the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to file
additional affidavits, if so required, within one week from
the date of appearance before the High Court.
15. The High Court is requested to decide the cases expeditiously, within a period of four months.
16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
17. The Registry is directed to send the original record to the High Court forthwith.
18. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 18.11.2024.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
19. Post remand by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter was nominated to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 06.02.2025 and was placed before this Bench on 17.02.2025.
20. A counter affidavit came to be filed by the respondent no. 4 on 02.12.2024. An objection to the counter affidavit came to be filed by the writ petitioner on 20.03.2025 that the report of the Court Commissioner dated 08.07.2024 is incomplete, thus, they are not able to file a proper reply to the counter affidavit. An application came to be filed by the respondent no. 4 bearing no. 7 of 2025 to inspect the Court Commissioner’s report dated 08.07.2024 and Central Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 30.08.2024. An application also came to be filed by the writ petitioner bearing no. 8 of 2025 for inspection of the records which includes CFSL report and the Court Commissioner’s report. The applications for inspection of the records came to be decided by a composite order on 23.04.2025. Thereafter, on 05.05.2025, the following orders were passed.-
“Pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2025, there is a report of the Registrar General dated 30.04.2025, wherein it has been recited as under:
“………….
Report and other documents for inspection are found in one sealed envelope.
Sealed envelope opened in presence of Learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No. 31255/2022 Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh and Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No. 4417/2023, Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur and Learned Counsel for the opposite party in both Writs, Sri Ganesh Kumar for inspection as permitted by Hon’ble Court & after inspection all records have been resealed in presence of all the above mentioned learned counsels.”
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in both the applications have submitted that though they had inspected the records on 30.04.2025 bu the learned Court Commissioner report which has been referred to para 14 of the order dated 07.11.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2024 was not available on record thus the same could not be inspected.
Shri Saran as well Shri Ashish Singh who appears for the opposite party no. 2 in the respective petitions have made a statement at bar that alraedy the said report has been filed along with short counter affidavit.
At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the copy of the report is not legible.
Shri Saran as well as Shri Ashish who appears for the opposite party no. 2 shall serve a typed as well as legible copy of the said report to learned counsel for the writ petitioner for within 24 hours.
Registrar General, High Court is directed to take appropriate steps for placing on record the report of the learned Court Commissioner as referred in the order dated 07.11.2024 of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Put up this case on 15.05.2025 under the same caption at 2.00 pm.”
21. Thereafter the parties have inspected the record. On 20.05.2025, an additional affidavit/objection was preferred by the writ petitioner herein. A short rejoinder affidavit dated 20.05.2025 came to be filed by the writ petitioner. A reply/counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 4 also came to be filed on 22.05.2025. A rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 was filed by the writ petitioner dated 26.05.2025. On 07.07.2025, an application came to be filed by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, brief notes dated 14.07.2025 came to be filed by the writ petitioner, a written submission was filed on 17.07.2025 by the respondent no. 4 and a written argument dated 21.07.2025 along with the case laws was filed by the writ petitioners.
Argument of counsel for writ petitioners:
22. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2021 allowing the election petition preferred by the fourth respondent while directing for re-counting of the invalid votes cannot be sustained for even a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that since the election petition so preferred by the fourth respondent under Section 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 itself lacked material facts and particulars and it contained vague and bald allegations, thus, it was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura but without any basis whatsoever the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, District Mathura in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2021 preferred by the fifth respondent directed for re-counting of the votes. Submission is that as per the own saying of the fourth respondent he had deposed that he had no knowledge about the number of votes polled in favour of each candidate, number of vote cancelled and even in fact, he admitted that he was not present at the time of counting and the averments made in the election petition was based upon the instructions given by her agent and further Lokmani who was the agent of the fourth respondent had only made a bald and vague assertion that written complaint regarding corrupt practices and material irregularity in re-counting was made by him, however, no written complaint or any record was submitted.
23. Argument is that on mere asking a direction for re-counting cannot be passed, as the election petitioner has to stand on his own leg and substantiate his case by way of pleadings. Thus, it is contended that in absence of a specific pleading in support of prayer for re-counting votes, absence of necessary evidence, the prayer for recounting ought to have been declined as the fourth respondent election petitioner had failed to satisfy that there is a strong, prima facie, case where re-counting should be directed. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the following judgments to bolster the submissions.-
1. Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others : AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1249, 2. Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind and others : 1975(1) SCC 687, 3. Ram Aadhar Singh Vs. The District Judge and others : 1985 Supreme (All) 425, 4. Vibha Sharma Vs. Saroj : 1996 LawSuit (All) 246, 5. T.A. Ahammed Kabeer Vs. A.A. Aziz and others : 2003(3) Supreme 584, 6. Harikrishna Lal vs. Babu Lal Marandi : 2003 (7) Supreme 598, 7. M. Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and others : 2003 SCW 6434, 8. Jayanta Samal Vs. Kulamani Behera and another : 2004 (13) SCC 552, 9. Amrish Vs. Up-Ziladhikari, Meerut and others : 2006 Supreme (All) 1432, 10. Sadhu Singh Vs. Darshan Singh and another : 2006 (5) Supreme 779, 11. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2009 Supreme (All) 2169, 12. Udey Chand Vs. Surat Singh and another : 2009 (7) Supreme 19, 13. Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2011 SCC Online All 2721, 14. Smt. Sajida Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kairana, District Shamli and 15 others : 2023 SCC Online All 11, 15. Managing Committee, Shiksha Parishad Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies : 2005 (2) AWC 1951, 16. Gyanendra Pal Singh and others Vs. Cane Commissioners and others : 2009 (27) LCD 938.
24. Next, it is contended that though pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2024 in SLP No. 8150 of 2023 recounting was directed to be conducted by the Commissioner appointed by the Apex Court and the recounting was held on 02.07.2024, the fourth respondent secured 376 votes whereas the writ petitioner was shown to have secured only 362 votes. Submission is that in the counting of the votes held on 02.05.2021, the number of votes secured by the writ petitioner was 379, however, 17 votes have been illegally excluded terming them to be invalid. Contention is that there is no basis for reduction from 379 to 362 particularly when the recounting of the votes were held pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court after a period of three years & two months. In a nutshell, the submission is that it is hardly possible, rather to the contrary impossible in every eventuality or contingency that no vote cast in favour of any other contested including the fourth respondent was found to be invalid after recounting.
25. It is also contended that in the recounting of the vote pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2024 two votes which were found to be invalid as per the initial counting have been declared valid votes in favour of the fourth respondent. The submission is that large scale irregularity and malpractices have been adopted to in order to tilt the circumstances in favour of the fourth respondent for the reason being that the fourth respondent happens to be a powerful and influential person who can get the things manipulated in her favour.
26. It is also stated that merely because pursuant to an order of the Court, a direction was issued for recounting of the votes but the same would not create any legal right as the result of the recounting would depend upon the pleadings and the allegations made in the election petition and in the event the pleadings do not contain material facts and necessary particulars, no benefits can be conferred on the basis of the result of the recounting. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in P.K.K. Shamsudeen vs K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen & Ors : AIR 1989 Supreme Court 640.
27. Lastly, it is contended that even pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court an inconclusive report stood submitted on 30.08.2024 by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory holding that it is not possible to opine whether the multiple seal impressions available on each of the ballet papers put at the same time on different time, thus, the fourth respondent election petitioner cannot insist that he is to be declared as a winning candidate particularly when the election petitioner, fourth respondent could not point out any infirmity in the election/voting conducted on 02.05.2021. It is, thus, prayed that the writ petition be allowed with costs.
Argument of counsel for Respondents:
28. Countering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Sharan along with Sri Ganesh Kumar Verma who appears for the fourth respondent have submitted that none of the contentions raised have any legs to stand. Submission is that first of all, now it was open for the writ petitioner to question the maintainability of the election petition particularly when the grounds of challenge to the election petition came to be discarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court while directing for recounting. Argument is that now once the recounting has been done, it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioner to question the maintainability of the election petition. Further submission is that the order of recounting has been passed on the consent of the parties and once the writ petitioner himself has given its consent and participated in the recounting and has secured lesser votes vis-a-vis the fourth respondent then he is estopped from questioning the recounting of the votes. It is also contended that the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court directing for recounting is inter se final between the parties and binding upon this Court. He also submits that none of the objections raised regarding recounting of the votes have any basis as they are vague and they do not tantamount to be a ground to negate the exercise of recounting and its result.
29. Sri K. Sharan, leanred AAG has supported the argument of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and has submitted that looking into the nature of the objections raised by the writ petitioners it would reveal that they have been taken as a name sake without any basis and there is nothing on record to even show that there was any irregularity conducted in recounting pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Analysis:
30. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
31. Apparently, the village panchayat elections through out Uttar Pradesh was notified by the Government in April, 2021 and the nomination on the post of Village Pradhan commenced for Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura on 18.04.2021. The writ petitioner along with fourth respondent-election petitioner and the respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 participated in the election which were held for the office of village pradhan on 24.09.2021, the total number of voters in Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura were 1097 and 952 voters participated in elections. The counting of the votes for the office of gram pradhan of Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura Village Panchayat Majhoi Bangar, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura was conducted on 02.05.2021 and as per the records, the writ petitioner secured 94 votes in the first round followed by 285 votes in the second round totalling to 379 and the fourth respondent secured 131 votes in first round and 243 votes in second round totalling to 374. The total number of votes cast in the first round were 341 and the second round 611 and the votes cancelled were in total 51 in first round followed by 32 in the second round totalling to 83 and the residue vote came to be cast in favour of respondents no. 5, 6 and 7. The writ petitioner was declared as a winning candidate who secured 379 votes and whereas the fourth respondent secured 374 and the difference between them was of 5 votes. An election petition under Section 12C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 came to be preferred by the fourth respondent questioning the election of the writ petitioner on 17.05.2021. Post adducing evidence by both the parties, the Election Petition No. 01350 of 2021 came to be dismissed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura which was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the fourth respondent while filing Civil Revision No. 38 of 2020 on 02.11.2021 which on contest came to be allowed on 22.09.2022 by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura and directing for recounting.
32. The same was challenged in the present petition preferred by the writ petitioner and the writ petition came to be allowed on 28.01.2023 quashing the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura.
33. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 8150 of 2023 and pursuant to the order dated 13.05.2024 passed in SLP No. 8150 of 2023, an Court Commissioner appointed by the Court to conduct recounting of the votes. The recounting of the votes was done on 02.07.2024 wherein the writ petitioner is stated to have secured 362 votes and the fourth respondent 376 votes and the difference of votes between them was 17. The total number of votes which were found to be invalid were 80+17=97 and the total number of votes cast were 952.
34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8150 of 2023 by order dated 12.08.2024 required the Central Forensic Science Laboratory to examine and submit report with respect of 17 invalid ballet papers and other 80 invalid ballet papers. A report came to be submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory dated 30.08.2024 which has been extracted above which shows that the same is inconclusive.
35. Accordingly, on 07.11.2024 the Special Leave Petition No. 8150 of 2023 came to be disposed of while setting aside the judgment and order dated 28.01.2023 passed in the present writ petition while remitting the matter back to this Court to decide the same afresh taking into consideration the report of learned Court Commissioner, Central Forensic Science Laboratory report or any other report that may be relied upon by the parties while according liberty to file additional if so required.
36. Before proceedings to examine the tenability of the argument of rival parties, it would be apposite to quote the objections preferred by the writ petitioners.
37. Objections came to be preferred by the writ petitioner who were respondents in the Hon’ble Apex Court and writ petitioner before this Court which are being quoted hereinunder.-
38. Objection before the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20.07.2024.-
“Objection against the report of the Court Commissioner on behalf of the first respondent
I, Sanjay Kumar S/O Jaipal Singh, R/O Majhoi, Majhoi Khadar, Bishambhara, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the pairokar of the first respondent in the captioned Special Leave Petition and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That I have gone though the contents of the Report of the Court Commissioner, along with the Annexures dated 08.07.2024 and served upon me on 18.07.2024.
3. That vide order dated 13-05-2024, this Hon’ble Court had directed as follows:
“3. Before we proceed with the matter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh is directed to re-count the votes in the presence of Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Advocate (M.No.9999110030), who is hereby appointed as the Court Commissioner. The re-counting shall be videographed by the Court Commissioner. The learned Court Commissioner shall also videograph the invalid declared votes. The result in a sealed cover, duly signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Court Commissioner as well as the petitioner and respondent No.1 (without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and respondent No.1 to submit their respective objections), shall be produced before us on the next date of hearing.”
4. That thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court, the recounting was scheduled and held on 02-07-2024 at 1:00 PM at SDM Court, Tehsil Office, Chhata, Uttar Pradesh.
5. That after recounting of votes, the Court Commissioner’s report states that the candidates secured votes as follows:
NAME OF CANDIDATES
VOTES IN FIRST ROUND
VOTES IN SECOND ROUND
TOTAL VOTES
Rajvir @ Rajveer
245
131
376
Tek Chand
268
94
362
Jitendra
49
61
110
Jaipal
3
3
6
Yadram
0
1
1
Invalid Votes found in earlier invalid vote bundle
29
51
80
Invalid votes found during recounting
17
0
17
Total
611
341
952
6. That the initial tally of counting of votes which was done on 02.05.2021 was as follows:
NAME OF CANDIDATES
VOTES IN FIRST ROUND
VOTES IN SECOND ROUND
TOTAL VOTES
Rajvir @ Rajveer
131
243
374
Tek Chand
94
285
379
Jitendra
61
48
109
Jaipal
3
3
6
Yadram
1
0
1
Invalid Votes
51
32
83
Total
341
611
952
7. That the Court Commissioner’s Report states that 17 votes out of the total number of votes which were cast in favour of the first respondent as per the initial counting, were found to be invalid upon recounting. Resultantly, the total number of votes cast in favour of the first respondent has now been reduced from 379 to 362. However, no votes cast in favour of any other contestant, including the petitioner, was found to be invalid after recounting. On the contrary, 2 votes that were found to be invalid as per the initial counting, have now been declared as valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that the recounting of votes was held as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court after a period of 3 years and 2 months from the date of the initial counting. That during this long period, the respondent herein has very strong reasons to believe that the ballots were tampered with by the petitioner in connivance with the officials responsible to secure the ballots.
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an influential person with political backing of the highest level in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is in a position to exercise considerable influence upon the officials responsible to maintain the sanctity of the ballots. It is for this reason that the present respondent has consistently maintained that the present petition seeking recounting of votes is malafide and complete abuse of process by the petitioner. It is also for this very reason that the present respondent has been consistently opposing the prayer of the petitioner seeking recounting of votes.
10. It is further submitted that the initial counting, subsequent to the conclusion of the elections, was carried out transparently and in the presence of representatives of all the candidates, including the government officials.
11. It is further submitted that only the votes that were polled in favour of the petitioner have now been found to be invalid. This gives rise to a strong suspicion that the ballots have been tampered with to ensure that the present respondent is removed from his post.
12. It is further submitted that the 17 votes which have now been declared as invalid votes, were earlier found to be valid by the officials who were in-charge of counting in the earlier round. How then did the officials in-charge of counting in the earlier round declare these votes as valid? This Hon’ble Court must summon the officials responsible for counting the votes in the earlier round and demand an explanation from them by way of an affidavit.
13. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court must also direct for a forensic investigation of the ballots in order to ascertain whether they were tampered with by either of the sides during the last 3 years and 2 months. This will not just put to rest all doubts and suspicion and ensure the legitimacy of the election process, but will also reinforce the constitutional principle of a free and fair election in a democracy which is also a basic structure of the Constitution.”
39. Objection and additional affidavit/objection dated 20.05.2025 before this Court.-
“30. That it is not out of place to mention here that during the course of inspection on 30.04.2025 ballot papers bearing nos. 6BB-7636204, 6BB-7636205, 6BB-7636233, 6BB-7636250 and 6BB-7636249 was not bearing any seal or thumb impression. The ballot paper bearing no. 6BB-7636327 was bearing half seal on it.
31. That it is further not out of place to mention here that the writ petitioner namely Tekchand raised his detailed objections before Hon’ble the Apex Court on 20.07.2024 and those objections were not decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court while passing its judgment on the writ 07.11.2024. The objections raised by petitioner namely Tekchand before Hon’ble Apex Court are still unanswered and undecided and the matter was remitted back to this Hon’ble Court.
32. That the petitioner is still standing upon objections, which have not been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court while passing the order dated 07.11.2024 and the matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court at present.
33. That the petitioner is further raising all those objections before this Hon’ble Court by this Affidavit as follows:-
(A) That the initial tally of counting of votes which were done on 02.05.2021 was as follows:-
NAME OF CANDIDATES
VOTES IN FIRST ROUND
VOTES IN SECOND ROUND
TOTAL VOTES
Rajvir @ Rajveer
131
243
374
Tek Chand
94
285
379
Jitendra
61
48
109
Jaipal
3
3
6
Yadram
1
0
1
Invalid Votes
51
32
83
Total
341
611
952
That in compliance of order dated 13.05.2024 passed by Hon’ble The Apex Court, the recounting of votes of the election of the Village Pradhan Majhoi, Tehsil-Chhata, District-Mathura was conducted in the presence of the Court Commissioner before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Chhata, District-Mathura on 02.07.2024.
(C) That the Court Commissioner namely Smt. Yugandhara Pawar Jha Advocate submitted her report dated 08.07.2024 along with Pen Drive and recounting result in sealed cover before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 15.07.2024.
D) That according to the report of Court Commissioner dated 08.07.2024, the candidates secured the votes as follows:-
Name of candidates
Votes in first round
Votes in second round
Total votes
Rajvir @ Rajveer
245
131
376
Tek Chand
268
94
362
Jitendra
49
61
110
Jaipal
3
3
6
Yadram
0
1
1
Invalid votes found in earlier invalid vote bundle
29
51
80
Invalid votes found during recounting
17
0
17
Total
611
341
952
(E) That the Court Commissioner’s Report states that 17 votes out of total number of votes which were casted in favour of the respondent no. 5 namely Rajvir as per the initial counting were found to be invalid upon recounting. Resultantly, the total number of votes cast in favour of the petitioner namely Tekchand, has now been reduced from 379 to 362 (i.e. 17 votes). However, no vote cast in favour of any other contestant, including the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir, was found to be invalid after recounting. On the contrary, 2 votes that were found to be invalid as per the initial counting, have now been declared as valid votes cast in favour of the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir.
(F) That the recounting of votes was held as per the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court after a period of 3 years and 2 months from the date of the initial counting (i.e. 02.05.2021). During this long period, the petitioner namely Tekchand has very strong reason to believe that the ballots were tempered by the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir in connivance with the officials responsible to secure the ballots.
(G) That the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir is an influential person with political backing of the highest level in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is in a position to exercise considerable influence upon the officials responsible to maintain the sanctity of the ballots. It is for the reason that the petitioner namely Tekchand has consistently maintained that the recounting of votes is malafide and complete abused of process by the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir.
(H) That the initial counting, subsequent to the and elections, conclusion and elections was carried out transparently and in the present of representatives of all the candidates, including the Government officials till 02.05.2021.
(I) That only the votes that were cast in favour of the respondent no.5 namely Rajvir have now been found to be invalid. This gives rise to a strong suspicion that the ballots have been tempered with to ensure that the petitioner namely Tekchand is removed from this post.
(J) That the 17 votes, which have now been declared invalid votes, were earlier found to be valid by the officials who were In-charge of counting in the earlier/initial round. How than did the officials In-charge of counting in the earlier/initial round declared as valid? This Hon’ble Court summon the officials responsible for counting the votes in the earlier/initial round on 02.05.2021 and demand explanation from them by way of an affidavit.
(K) That this Hon’ble Court must also direct for an investigation of the ballots in order to ascertain whether they were tempered with either of the sides during the last 3 years and 2 months till 02.07.2024. This will not just put to rest all doubts and suspicion and ensure the legitimacy of the election process, but will also reinforce the Constitutional Principle of a free and fair election in a democracy which is also a basis structure of the Constitution of India.
(L) That it is relevant to point out here that the election petitioner before the Authority/Sub-Divisional Prescribed Magistrate, Chhata namely Rajvir has not taken any specific ground upon which he could raise his case that there were specific certain votes of Rajvir which have illegally been counted in favour of Tekchand by the Returning Officer or his employees on 02.05.2021.
(M) That it is further relevant to point out here that after recount on 02.07.2024, 17 votes casted in favour of petitioner namely Tekchand, no averment was made that these votes were wrongly counted or these votes are invalid because of two cross seals.
(N) That it is further more relevant to point out here that the objections of the petitioner namely Tekchand have not been decided even after availing the Central Forensic Laboratory Report dated 30.08.2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2024 has remitted the aforesaid matter to this Hon’ble Court to decide the same afresh, taking into consideration the reports of the Learned Court Commissioner, the C.F.S.L. report and any other report that may be relied upon by the parties.
(O) That it is further more relevant to point out here. that the Hon’ble Apex Court has not expressed any opinion upon the merit of the case of the petitioner and even then surprisingly the judgment dated 28.01.2023 passed on merit by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid writ petition bearing no. 31255 of 2022 (Tekchand Vs State of U.P. and others) has been set-aside.
(P) That the Hon’ble Apex Court has committed manifest error of law that when the report of the a.F.S.L. dated 30.08.2024 was not complete, it should be sent before any higher forensic laboratory for proper investigation of the invalid ballot papers so that the dispute involved might be properly adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
(Q) That this Hon’ble Court is competent enough to get the dispute further investigated through any higher forensic laboratory of the country so that the dispute involved may be adjudicated fairly.
(R) That the Returning Officer along with his entire staff, who conducted the initial counting on 02.05.2021 of the election of the post of Pradhan of Village-Majhoi, Tehsil-Chhata, District-Mathura should be directed to file their personal affidavits to explain which candidate received how many votes, and further to explain whether the counting was conducted fairly or not.”
40. A bare look of the objections preferred by the writ petitioners would reveal that the same are two fold firstly, with respect to the maintainability of the election petition preferred by the fourth respondent post counting of the votes on 02.05.2021 and secondly, the objections to the recounting done on 02.07.2024 by the Court Commissioner pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 8150 of 2023 dated 13.05.2024.
41. As regards the objection raised by the writ petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the election petition preferred by the fourth respondent is concerned the basic premise is that the election petition lacks material facts and details and the election petitioner fourth respondent failed to substitute his case while making specific pleading in support of prayer for recount of votes and a strong, prima facie, case where recounting should have been directed as only vague and bald allegations have been made. Much emphasis has been laid upon the fact that the election petitioner, fourth respondent in his statement has deposed that he had no knowledge about the number of votes polled in favour of each candidate as well as number of votes cancelled, he was not present at the time of counting and the averments made in the election petition was based upon instructions given by the agent. Further the agent of the election petitioner fourth respondent Lokmani is alleged to have made complaint about material irregularities in recounting of the votes but no written complaint was brought on record. Thus, the submission is that once the election petitioner, fourth respondent was not able to prove that he had strong, prima facie, case in his favour for recounting, thus, recounting done pursuant to the order of the Court would not create any legal right post obtaining more votes. The objection of the counsel for the fourth respondent is to the extent that now the said argument does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioner particularly when on his consent a direction was issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.05.2024 in SLP No. 8150 of 2023 for recounting of the votes. He submits that the order of the Apex Court would be binding upon the parties as the same had been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
42. Having bestowed consideration upon the argument so advanced by the rival parties, undisputed position, emerges that the challenge raised by the writ petitioner for setting aside the order of the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura dated 22.09.2022 directing for recounting of the votes came to be endorsed in the present writ petition vide order dated 28.01.2023, however, against the order dated 28.01.2023 Special Leave Petition was preferred by the fourth respondent in which on the consent of the parties recounting was directed to be done through Court Commissioner pursuant whereto the fourth respondent secured more votes than the writ petitioner. Once the position being so, this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to go into the legality and the validity of the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 7, Mathura directing for recounting. The writ petitioner once have acquesed while giving consent for recounting can not turn around and question the order directing for recounting passed by the Additional District and Session Judge in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2021. Moreover, what would be relevant is the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court encapsuled in para 14 of the judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed in SLP No. 8150 of 2023 setting aside the judgment dated 28.01.2023 while remitting the matter back to High Court to decide the same afresh taking into consideration the report of the learned Court Commissioner, CFSL report and any other report which may be relied upon by the parties. Thus, the objection so raised with respect to the legality and validity of the order dated 22.09.2022 of the Additional District and Session Judge, Mathura cannot be gone into and is rejected.
43. Now the next question which arises for consideration is regarding the objection raised by the writ petitioner to the recounting done on 02.07.2024 by the Court Commissioner in pursuance of the order dated 13.05.2024 of the Apex Court in SLP No. 8150 of 2023. The primary objection of the writ petitioner is that there is no basis to exclude 17 votes while terming them to be invalid while reducing the vote secured by the writ petitioner from 379 to 362. Contention is that in the votes which were counted on 02.05.2021 the number of votes secured by the writ petitioner was 94 in the first round and 285 in the second round totalling to 379 but in the recounting held on 02.07.2024 the writ petitioner has been shown to have secured 268 in the first round and 94 in the second round being 362. Emphasis is that by no stretch of imagination 17 votes out of total number of votes cast in favour of the writ petitioner could have been declared invalid upon recounting and in order to re-enforce the said argument, it is contended that except the writ petitioner no vote cast in favour of any other contestant including the fourth respondent-election petitioner was found to be invalid after recounting and rather to the contrary, the two votes which have been earlier declared invalid have been termed to be valid and they have been accounted in favour of the fourth respondent while enhancing from 374 to 376. Much emphasis has been made upon the fact that the recounting was done after 3 years 2 months post the counting of the votes done on 02.05.2021, thus, there is strong reasons to believe that the ballots were tampered in favour of the fourth respondent-election petitioner in connivance with the officials. In order to further emphasize, allegations have been levelled that the fourth respondent election petitioner has a political backing of the highest level in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is in a position to exercise considerable influence upon the officials. The said submissions have been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the fifth respondent while contending that the report of the Court Commissioner dated 13.05.2024 itself is clear explicit according to which the recounting was done in the presence of all the contestant including the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent, the seals were open in presence of the writ petitioner and all the contestants including administration and no objection whatsoever has been preferred at that point of time. Further according to them only for name sake merely because the writ petitioner secured lesser votes vis-a-vis the fourth respondent election petitioner such type of frivolous objections are being raised. It is also contended that none of the contestants including the writ petitioner who were present when the recounting was done on 02.07.2024 had made any objection.
44. In the opinion of the Court, none of the objections raised by the counsel for the writ petitioner has any basis. A close reading of the report of the Court Commissioner dated 13.05.2024 would reveal that the recounting of votes was held on 02.07.2024 at 1:00 P.M. at SDM Court, Tehsil Chhata, Mathura, U.P. Prior to it, a notice came to be issued on 12.06.2024 by the concerned SDM informing all the candidates about scheduled recounting of the votes, the writ petitioner along with the election petitioner fifth respondent and other three contestants were present, video graphers were also present at SDM Court, Tehsil Chhata, U.P. at around 12:00 Noon was scheduled for recounting of the votes, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate along with the Block Development Officers, Executive Officers and Other Gazetted officers were present and the writ petitioner was represented through Sanjay Kumar followed by the other contestants including the election petitioner fourth respondent. The votes were bought in sealed pack from the treasury by the Block Development Officer, Chhata accompanied by the Police, the sacks were secured and were exhibited with unbroken seal, the seal and sack was duly checked by the parties present. Para 10 to 12 of the report dated 13.05.2024 (reproduced hereinabove) itself shows that the details of the recounting and a chart showing the votes secured by the contestants is also apparent from para 13 of the report. Had the seals were broken and there was material irregularity present then the writ petitioner could have objected to the same. However, there is nothing on record worth consideration except bald allegations so made that there is strong possibility of manipulation on the premise that the election petitioner fifth respondent is an influential person who in connivance with the officials have manipulated the things in his favour even though patronage of political party has been alleged against the fifth respondent election petitioner but there is no evidence in the objections to the said extent.
45. The further objections of the writ petitioner that there have been manipulations of 17 votes while excluding them terming to be invalid is concerned, the same is not acceptable for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 10 to 12 of the Advocate Commissioner report dated 13.05.2024. So far as allegation of illegal enhancement of two votes in favour of the election petitioner fourth respondent is concerned, the same is preposterous and out of context particularly when there is nothing on record to substantiate the same but only ipse dixit merely making bald and vague allegations will not suffice.
46. As regards the issue of 97 votes being termed to be invalid during the recounting held on 02.07.2024 pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2024 in SLP (C) No. 8150 of 2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 sought opinion from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and a report came to be submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory dated 30.08.2024 which was stated to be inconclusive but no material has been brought on record by the writ petitioner questioning the same by either relying upon any other fresh report or even otherwise. This Court in absence of any credible evidence or material or valid objection brought on record by the writ petitioner is not required to delve upon the same. The objections so preferred by the writ petitioner either before the Hon’ble Apex Court or before this Court are neither sufficient nor in any way clinching so as to hold that the exercise undertaken by the Court Commissioner and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court suffers from any legal infirmity or illegality.
47. Accordingly, no good ground is made to interfere in the present proceedings. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order date:- 26.08.2025
Rajesh