Smt. Sandhya Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
1 WP-47336-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 3 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47336 of 2025
SMT. SANDHYA CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Parasar - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(1) That, the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 contained
in Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and the election petition
be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
(2) Any other suitable writ/order may kindly be passed in
the interest of justice.
(3) Costs may kindly also be awarded."
The present petition arises out of an election dispute relating to the election
of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kheriyasindh, Tehsil Mehgaon, District
Bhind, held in the General Elections, 2022. The petitioner, Smt. Sandhya
Chauhan, and respondent No.2, Smt. Lakshmi Chauhan, were among the
candidates contesting the said election. Upon completion of polling and counting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
2 WP-47336-2025
of votes, the petitioner secured 338 votes, whereas respondent No.2 secured 336

votes. Consequently, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch by the
Returning Officer by a margin of two votes.
Aggrieved by the declaration of the election result, respondent No.2
instituted an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat
Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Specified Officer, Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mehgaon, alleging that the counting of votes had not been
conducted properly and certain valid votes cast in her favour had been illegally
rejected while invalid votes had been counted in favour of the petitioner. On the
basis of the said allegations, respondent No.2 sought setting aside of the
petitioner's election and prayed for recounting of votes.
The petitioner entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement
denying all the allegations made in the election petition contending that the polling
and counting processes had been conducted strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 under the
supervision of the competent election authorities, no illegality or irregularity had
occurred during the counting process, and no application for recount had been
submitted during the counting as required under law.
Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Specified Officer
framed the necessary issues for adjudication and called for a report from the
Returning Officer. After considering the pleadings, the documentary material on
record and the report of the Returning Officer, the Specified Officer, vide order
dated 03.02.2023, dismissed the election petition, holding that no prima facie case
of any error or irregularity in the counting process had been established so as to
warrant recount of votes.
Challenging the order dated 03.02.2023, respondent No.2 preferred Writ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
3 WP-47336-2025
Petition No.6058 of 2023 before this Court. By order dated 24.04.2025, this Court

had set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the SDO/Specified
Officer/Election Tribunal with a direction to afford the parties an opportunity to
adduce evidence and thereafter decide the election petition afresh in accordance
with law.
Pursuant to the remand order, the Specified Officer restored the election
petition, recorded the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective
parties, heard the final arguments and, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2025,
allowed the election petition. The Specified Officer directed the Tehsildar to
undertake recounting of the votes and submit a report on or before 20.12.2025,
principally on the ground that the margin of victory between the petitioner and
respondent No.2 was only two votes.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner has
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order
on the ground that the direction for recount has been issued contrary to the
statutory provisions governing recount of votes, without recording findings on the
issues framed, without any cogent evidence establishing material irregularity in
the counting process, and by unlawfully delegating the quasi-judicial function of
recounting to the Tehsildar. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the Specified Officer, Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mehgaon, District Bhind, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, perverse,
and contrary to the settled principles governing election disputes and recount of
votes. It was contended that the Specified Officer has exercised jurisdiction in a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
4 WP-47336-2025
manner unknown to law and has directed recounting of votes without there being

any factual foundation or legal justification warranting such an extraordinary
exercise. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed in exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election of the
petitioner was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Polling was held peacefully and the counting
of votes was carried out by the competent election authorities in the presence of
the counting agents of all contesting candidates. Upon completion of counting, the
petitioner secured 338 votes, whereas respondent No.2 secured 336 votes, and
accordingly, the petitioner was declared duly elected as Sarpanch. At no point
during the counting process did respondent No.2 or her counting agent raise any
objection regarding the manner of counting or submit any application seeking
recount of votes before the Returning Officer.
It was vehemently contended that the entire election petition rests upon an
application for recount admittedly submitted only after the completion of counting
and declaration of the result. Drawing the attention of this Court to the proviso
appended to Rule 80 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995,
learned counsel submitted that the statutory scheme clearly mandates that an
application for recount must be made during the course of counting and before the
declaration of the result. The Rule does not contemplate or permit any application
for recount after the counting process has concluded. Since the counting concluded
on 11.07.2022, whereas the application relied upon by respondent No.2 was
submitted on 12.07.2022, the very request for recount was barred by the statutory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
5 WP-47336-2025
provisions. Consequently, the Specified Officer committed a patent error of

jurisdiction in entertaining an election petition founded upon a legally
impermissible claim for recount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order and
submitted that the same is patently illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law,
having been passed in complete disregard of the settled principles governing
recount of votes in an election dispute, as the Specified Officer has exercised
jurisdiction in a manner not sanctioned by law by directing recount of votes in the
absence of any legally admissible material establishing irregularity in the counting
process.
Learned counsel further submitted that the law relating to recount of votes
is no longer res integra. Recount cannot be directed as a matter of course or merely
because the margin of victory is narrow. The power to order recount is an
exceptional one and can be exercised only where the election petitioner lays a
clear and specific factual foundation in the pleadings, adduces cogent and reliable
evidence establishing material irregularity in the counting process, and
demonstrates that such irregularity has materially affected the election result.
Unless these indispensable requirements are satisfied, the secrecy of the ballot,
which is a sacrosanct principle of election law, cannot be permitted to be
breached. In the present case, neither the pleadings nor the evidence disclosed any
specific instance of improper acceptance, rejection or counting of ballot papers.
The allegations are vague, omnibus and unsupported by any contemporaneous
record. The Specified Officer has directed recount solely because the margin of
victory was two votes, which is contrary to the settled principles repeatedly laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reliance was placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
6 WP-47336-2025
Veeramalla Koteswara Rao, (2010) 1 SCC 466, wherein it has been held that

recount cannot be ordered on mere suspicion, conjectures or on the basis of a
narrow margin of votes unless the election petitioner establishes, by specific
pleadings and convincing evidence, that there has been improper acceptance,
rejection or counting of votes materially affecting the election result.
It was further submitted that the Specified Officer has failed to discharge
the statutory obligation of adjudicating the issues framed in the election petition.
Although as many as ten issues had been framed for determination, the impugned
order does not contain any discussion or finding thereon. Instead of recording
reasoned conclusions on the pleadings, evidence and legal objections raised by the
parties, the Specified Officer has mechanically proceeded to direct recount without
analysing either the oral or documentary evidence available on record. The
impugned order is, therefore, a non-speaking order suffering from complete non-
application of mind and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 has utterly failed to
discharge the burden of proof cast upon an election petitioner and allegations
relating to improper counting are serious in nature and require strict proof. Despite
levelling allegations against the Returning Officer and other election officials,
respondent No.2 neither summoned the Returning Officer nor examined any
member of the counting staff to substantiate those allegations. On the contrary,
when the petitioner sought summoning of the Returning Officer and other election
officials so that the actual facts could be brought before the Specified Officer,
respondent No.2 opposed such prayer. Having failed to produce the best available
evidence, respondent No.2 could not have been permitted to succeed merely on
the basis of self-serving oral testimony. The Specified Officer has thus ignored the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
7 WP-47336-2025
settled principle that the burden of proving the allegations squarely rests upon the

election petitioner.
Learned counsel also contended that the election petition itself suffered
from fundamental defects rendering it not maintainable. The election petition was
not accompanied by the mandatory affidavit as required under the applicable
statutory provisions. Compliance with such mandatory procedural requirements
assumes greater significance in election disputes, which are creatures of statute
and are required to be decided strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme. In
the absence of a duly sworn affidavit, the election petition was liable to be rejected
at the threshold. The Specified Officer, however, failed to consider this
preliminary objection and proceeded to entertain the election petition on merits,
thereby committed a manifest error of law.
It was further submitted that respondent No.2 has failed to produce any
contemporaneous material to substantiate the allegation that valid ballot papers
had been wrongly rejected or invalid ballot papers had been counted in favour of
the petitioner. No objection recorded during counting, no contemporaneous
protest, no document prepared by the Returning Officer, nor any other official
record indicating irregularity in the counting process has been brought on record.
The allegation regarding wrongful rejection of twenty ballot papers has remained
wholly unsubstantiated throughout the proceedings. Mere assertions made by
interested witnesses are wholly insufficient to dislodge the statutory presumption
of correctness attached to the official election record.
Learned counsel next submitted that the Specified Officer has committed a
grave jurisdictional error by directing the Tehsildar to conduct recount of votes
and submit a report. The power to adjudicate an election dispute and to determine
whether recount is warranted is a quasi-judicial function vested exclusively in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
8 WP-47336-2025
Specified Officer under the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram

Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Such statutory and quasi-judicial powers cannot be
delegated to a subordinate authority in the absence of any express statutory
provision authorising such delegation. By directing the Tehsildar to undertake the
recount, the Specified Officer has effectively abdicated the jurisdiction vested in
him by law. Consequently, the impugned direction is ex facie without jurisdiction
and liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order completely
overlooked the earlier proceedings in the matter. Prior to remand, the Specified
Officer had dismissed the election petition after considering the pleadings and the
report of the Returning Officer, specifically holding that no prima facie case for
recount had been made out. The remand order passed by this Court merely
directed that the parties be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and did not
dilute the settled legal principles governing recount, nor authorise the Specified
Officer to direct recount in the absence of legally acceptable evidence. Despite the
evidence recorded after remand failing to establish any material irregularity in the
counting process, the Specified Officer has reversed the earlier conclusion without
assigning any cogent or convincing reasons, rendering the impugned order
arbitrary and unsustainable.
It was also submitted that after remand, the petitioner repeatedly applied for
certified copies of the proceedings and order sheets. However, despite repeated
requests, the authorities failed to furnish the same within a reasonable time,
thereby seriously prejudicing the petitioner's right to avail the statutory and
constitutional remedies available in law. Such procedural unfairness has also
vitiated the impugned proceedings.
Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
9 WP-47336-2025
in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao (supra) , learned

counsel reiterated that recount of votes cannot be directed on mere suspicion,
conjectures or because the margin of victory is slender. Unless the election
petitioner establishes through specific pleadings and convincing evidence that
there has been improper acceptance, rejection or counting of votes materially
affecting the result of the election, the secrecy of the ballot cannot be disturbed.
According to the petitioner, none of these essential preconditions stands satisfied
in the present case.
On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order
dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Specified Officer, Mehgaon, District Bhind,
directing recount of votes be quashed and set aside, the election petition preferred
by respondent No.2 be dismissed, and the present writ petition be allowed with
costs.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the
impugned order and submitted that the Specified Officer has passed the impugned
order upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary
evidence and the material available on record. It was submitted that the election
for the office of Sarpanch was decided by an extremely narrow margin of only two
votes, and respondent No.2 had specifically pleaded in the election petition that
several valid ballot papers cast in her favour had been illegally rejected during the
counting process. These pleadings were not vague or omnibus in nature but
contained specific allegations regarding improper rejection of valid votes, which
were duly supported by oral evidence adduced before the Specified Officer.
It was further submitted that, pursuant to the remand order passed by this
Court in W.P. No.6058/2023, both parties were afforded proper opportunity to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
10 WP-47336-2025
lead evidence. The election petitioner examined herself as well as her counting

agents, who consistently deposed regarding the wrongful rejection of valid ballot
papers, whereas the returned candidate also led evidence in rebuttal. Upon
appreciation of the entire evidence, the Specified Officer recorded a prima facie
satisfaction that the allegations regarding improper rejection of valid votes
required verification by way of recounting. The impugned order is, thus, founded
upon due consideration of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be
arbitrary or without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel further submitted that the direction for recounting has been
issued only with a view to ascertain the true mandate of the electorate and to
preserve the purity and fairness of the electoral process. The order neither declares
the election petitioner elected nor sets aside the election of the returned candidate.
It merely directs recounting of the ballot papers so that the actual result of the
election may be determined in accordance with law.
Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan
Lal v. Babu Gandhi & Others, (2003) 1 SCC 108 : 2003 (2) MPLJ 215, learned
counsel submitted that there is no statutory bar preventing the Election Tribunal or
the Specified Officer from directing recount of votes in an election petition where
the pleadings and evidence disclose a prima facie case of improper counting or
wrongful rejection of votes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held
that the absence of a recount application before the Returning Officer during the
counting process is not, by itself, fatal to an election petition seeking recount, and
where the facts and evidence justify such a course, the Election Tribunal is
competent to direct recounting in order to ascertain the correct result of the
election.
Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Rati v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
11 WP-47336-2025
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sidhi & Others, 2005 (3) MPLJ 101, wherein it has been

held that although recounting cannot be directed merely because the margin of
victory is narrow, the Court or Election Tribunal is justified in ordering recount
where there are specific pleadings, cogent evidence and a prima facie satisfaction
regarding irregularities in counting or wrongful acceptance or rejection of ballot
papers. It was submitted that the present case squarely falls within the parameters
laid down in the aforesaid decisions, as the election petitioner has not relied
merely upon the narrow margin of victory but has substantiated her allegations
through pleadings as well as oral evidence recorded after remand.
It was further contended that the impugned order is purely interlocutory in
nature and does not finally determine the rights of the parties and the recounting
directed by the Specified Officer is only a procedural exercise intended to verify
the correctness of the counting process and to ensure that the candidate, who has
actually secured the highest number of valid votes is declared elected. Such an
order advances the cause of electoral justice and cannot be interfered with in
exercise of the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, unless it is shown to suffer from patent lack of
jurisdiction or manifest perversity, which is conspicuously absent in the present
case. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is legal, just
and in consonance with the settled principles governing election disputes. The writ
petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed with costs.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The law governing recount of votes is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently held that secrecy of the ballot is a fundamental
feature of the democratic electoral process and cannot be lightly disturbed. An
order directing recount of votes is an exception to the general rule and can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
12 WP-47336-2025
passed only upon strict satisfaction of the conditions recognised by law. The

election petitioner must lay a proper factual foundation by incorporating specific
material facts in the election petition, establish those allegations by cogent,
reliable and convincing evidence, and the Election Tribunal must record a clear
and reasoned satisfaction that improper acceptance or rejection of ballot papers or
any other material irregularity in the counting process has materially affected the
result of the election. A recount cannot be ordered merely on suspicion,
conjectures, vague allegations or because the margin of victory is narrow.
The aforesaid principles stand authoritatively settled in Bhabhi v. Sheo
Govind, (1975) 1 SCC 687, P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen,
(1989) 1 SCC 526, Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355, Kattinokkula
Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao, (2010) 1 SCC 466, and Mukesh
Kumar Rohatgi v. Narendra Kumar Tripathi, (2024) 2 SCC 648. In Kattinokkula
Murali Krishna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically held that recount
of votes can be ordered only in rare cases upon specific pleadings and proof of
improper acceptance or rejection of ballot papers. It was further observed that
secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct and cannot be disturbed on bare allegations of
illegality or irregularity. It was further held that a narrow margin of votes does not,
by itself, give rise to any presumption of irregularity in counting and that the
burden to establish such irregularity lies entirely upon the election petitioner.
Unless these foundational requirements are fulfilled, a direction for recount cannot
be sustained.
In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kattinokkula
Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao ( supra), while affirming the
decision of the High Court, reiterated the well-settled principles governing recount
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
13 WP-47336-2025
of votes in the following words:

"Re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on
specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that
illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The
petitioner who seeks re-count should allege and prove that there
was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of
valid votes. If only the court is satisfied about the truthfulness of
the above allegation, it can order re-count of votes. Secrecy of
ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic
process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare
allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But if it is
proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has
materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated
candidate is seriously prejudiced, the court can resort to re-count
of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the
parties."
Again, in paragraph 25 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
"It needs to be emphasised that having regard to the
consequences emanating from the direction of re-counting, which may
even breach the secrecy of ballot, the doctrine of prejudice is an
irrelevant factor for ordering re-count. Similarly, a narrow margin of
votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner does
not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity
or illegality in the counting of votes. In the first instance, material facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
14 WP-47336-2025
in this behalf have to be stated clearly in the election petition and then

proved by cogent evidence. Undoubtedly, the onus to prove the
allegation of irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the election
process on the part of the Election Officer is on the election petitioner
and not on the Election Officer..."
The aforesaid exposition of law leaves no manner of doubt that recount of
votes is an exceptional remedy and cannot be directed merely because the margin
of victory is slender. The election petitioner is required to lay a clear factual
foundation in the pleadings, specifically plead the instances of improper
acceptance or rejection of ballot papers and substantiate those allegations by
cogent and convincing evidence. Unless the Election Tribunal records a clear
satisfaction regarding the existence of such irregularity and its material impact on
the election result, the secrecy of the ballot cannot be permitted to be disturbed.
Examining the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid principles, this
Court finds that the learned Specified Officer has not recorded any categorical
finding that any valid ballot paper cast in favour of respondent No.2 was
improperly rejected or that any invalid ballot paper was improperly accepted in
favour of the petitioner. The impugned order also does not disclose any reasoned
finding that the alleged irregularity materially affected the result of the election.
On the contrary, the direction for recount appears to have been issued principally
on the premise that the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of two votes.
Such reasoning is directly contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kattinokkula Murali Krishna (supra), wherein it has been categorically
held that a narrow margin of victory does not, by itself, constitute a legal ground
for directing recount of votes.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
15 WP-47336-2025
Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the impugned

order does not withstand judicial scrutiny. A careful reading thereof reveals that
the learned Specified Officer has not recorded any categorical finding that any
valid ballot paper cast in favour of respondent No.2 was improperly rejected or
that any invalid ballot paper was improperly accepted in favour of the petitioner.
There is equally no finding that any alleged irregularity in the counting process
materially affected the result of the election. The impugned order merely refers to
the evidence led by the parties in a general manner and proceeds to direct recount
principally on the premise that the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of
only two votes. Such an approach is directly contrary to the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which unequivocally holds that a slender margin of
victory, by itself, cannot furnish a legal basis for directing recount.
This Court further finds that although ten issues had been framed for
adjudication, the learned Specified Officer has failed to return independent
findings on any of those issues. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding
the maintainability of the election petition, the effect of Rule 80 of the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, the alleged absence of the mandatory
affidavit, the burden of proof resting upon the election petitioner, and the legality
of directing the Tehsildar to undertake recount have not been considered by
assigning cogent reasons. A quasi-judicial authority exercising jurisdiction in an
election dispute is under a statutory obligation to consider the pleadings,
appreciate the evidence, adjudicate every material issue and assign reasons in
support of its conclusions. The omission to discharge these obligations renders the
impugned order a non-speaking order suffering from manifest non-application of
mind.
The evidence relied upon by respondent No.2 also does not satisfy the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
16 WP-47336-2025
stringent standard required for directing recount. The allegation that

approximately twenty valid ballot papers were wrongly rejected has not been
substantiated by any contemporaneous official record. Neither the Returning
Officer nor any member of the counting staff was examined to establish the
alleged irregularities. No contemporaneous objection recorded during counting,
no official document, nor any independent evidence has been produced to
probabilise the allegations. In election jurisprudence, where the correctness of the
official election record carries a presumption of regularity, such serious allegations
cannot be accepted merely on the basis of interested oral testimony unsupported
by independent evidence.
The reliance placed by respondent No.2 upon Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi &
Others, (2003) 1 SCC 108 : 2003 (2) MPLJ 215, and Ram Rati v. Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sidhi & Others, 2005 (3) MPLJ 101, is of no assistance. In Sohan Lal
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the absence of an application for
recount before the Returning Officer does not, by itself, bar the Election Tribunal
from directing recount where the pleadings and evidence otherwise disclose a
prima facie case. Likewise, Ram Rati (supra) recognises that recount may be
directed where specific pleadings are supported by satisfactory evidence and the
Tribunal records a reasoned satisfaction that recount is necessary. Neither of these
decisions lays down that recount can be ordered merely because the margin of
victory is narrow or on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations. On the
contrary, both decisions presuppose strict compliance with the settled
requirements governing recount. Since the impugned order does not satisfy those
requirements, the reliance placed upon the aforesaid authorities is clearly
misplaced.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:19480
17 WP-47336-2025
undoubtedly supervisory in nature. However, where a statutory authority exercises

jurisdiction in disregard of binding precedents, fails to decide the issues arising for
determination, omits to record findings on material questions, and directs recount
in the absence of the statutory preconditions recognised by law, the impugned
order cannot be permitted to stand. Judicial review in such circumstances is not
directed against appreciation of evidence but against the decision-making process
itself, which in the present case stands vitiated by patent errors of law, manifest
non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the
settled legal principles governing election disputes.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the direction issued
by the learned Specified Officer for recount of votes is wholly unsustainable in
law. The mandatory conditions precedent for directing recount having not been
fulfilled, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
27.11.2025 passed by the Specified Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehgaon,
District Bhind in Election Petition No.0011/A-89(21)/2022-23 directing recount
of votes is hereby quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 7/9/2026
11:18:50 AM