Amrik Singh v. Election Tribunal Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda and Other

IN T

Amrik Singh Election Tribuna Magistrate and O

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

for

Mr

Ms

For

MANDEEP PA

1.

Tha has been filed b petition filed by of village Phul

12.09.2025 pass is wholly illega State Election C 1994, and again High Courts.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

VERSUS al-cum-Sub Divisional Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for the p r. Akhil Kamra, AAG Punjab, respondent No.1 r. Sangram Singh Saron, Advoca s. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate r respondent No.2/Caveator. -.- ANNU J. at the present petition under Arti by the petitioner Amrik Singh se y respondent No. 2 Hardev Sing llo Mithi, District Bathinda, a sed by the Election Tribunal, Ba al, erroneous, contrary to the m Commission Act, 1994 and the nst the settled law laid down by

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-6772-2025 (O&M) cided on :- 24.09.2025

....Petitioner ....Respondents EEP PANNU petitioner. ate and icle 227 of the Constitution of In eeking setting aside of the elect gh son of Mohinder Singh, resid as also the impugned order da athinda, on the ground that the sa mandatory provisions of the Pun Punjab Panchayat Election Ru y the Hon'ble Supreme Court a

- ndia dent ated ame njab ules,

Brief Facts

2.

Bac

15.10.2024 for Bathinda, in wh No. 3 Gurtej Sin the petitioner s secured 1033 vo and 65 votes w election was pre parties including

3.

The dated 'nil' befo

02.12.2024 as ca

4.

The

5.

Du framed by the E

¶1ma

¶2cas

3.

4.

¶5ckground of the case is that the the office of Sarpanch of villag hich the petitioner, respondent N ngh contested. The total valid po secured 1044 votes and was de otes, respondent No. 3 secured 5 were cancelled though wrongly m epared on Form 9 dated 15.10.2 g respondent No. 2 without any p ereafter, respondent No. 2 Hard fore respondent No. 1 on 22.1 ase No. 31/EP. e petitioner filed reply to the said uring the pendency of the pro Election Tribunal, Bathinda on 09 Was the vote counting con nipulation during the counting Were the votes of voters who st by other individuals? O.P. Is a recount of votes warrant Is the petition not maintainab Does the petitioner not have

e election in question was held ge Phullo Mithi, Tehsil and Dist No. 2 Hardev Singh and respond olled votes were 2715, out of wh eclared elected, respondent No 572 votes, one vote went to NO mentioned as 63. The result of 2024 which was duly signed by protest. dev Singh filed an election petit

11.2024 which was registered d petition. oceedings, following issues w

9.05.2025, as follows: nducted incorrectly and was th ? O.P. o had shifted out of the village a ted? O.P. ble in its current form? O.R.-1 e the right to file the petition? O.

-d on trict dent hich o. 2 OTA y all on were here also .R.-

¶6Sta

7..

6.

On file reply and to himself as PW1/ cross-examinati closed his evide evidence and completed on 13 produced any c any complaint Election Commi throughout the objection. Desp

12.09.2025 orde petition. Submissions of

7.

The asserting that t maintainable fro mandatory prov Act, 1994 and R the deposit of se the time of prese Was the petition filed in viola ate Election Commission Act, 199 Relief. n 09.06.2025 respondent No. 2 h o cross-examine the witnesses. /A, Darshan Singh as PW2/A an on was completed on 10.07.20 ence on 01.08.2025. Responden filed his affidavit as DW1/A

3.08.2025. It is an admitted posit ogent evidence of irregularities filed at the time of counting ission, though respondent No. 2 counting on 15.10.2024 and pite this, the learned Election Tr ered recounting of the votes whi f learned counsel for the Petitio e counsel for the petitioner ha the election petition presented om the very inception as it wa visions of Section 103 of the P Rule 52 of the Punjab Panchayat ecurity for costs and deposit of entation of election petition, and

ation of Section 77(2) of the Punj 94? O.R.-1 imself appeared and sought time Respondent No. 2 then examin nd Gurmail Singh as PW3/A, wh

¶025Thereafter, respondent No nt No. 3 Gurtej Singh appeared A whose cross-examination w tion on record that none of the P in the counting of votes, nor w before the Returning Officer and his election agent were pres signed the result sheet with ribunal vide impugned order da ich has been assailed in the pres oner as challenged the impugned or d by respondent No. 2 was as filed without compliance of Punjab State Election Commiss t Election Rules, 1994, inasmuch court fee is required to be made d Rule 53 mandates that the elect

- njab e to ned hose o. 2 d in was PWs was r or sent hout ated sent rder not sion h as

Tribunal shall d case, no such de on 22.11.2024, allowed respond whereafter the c does not cure th Court in Lachh been categorica presentation is m

8.

It h election petition Punjab State E petition must be candidate. The e of forty-five day up by the Tribu is noted in the Government aut the petition was rigid and canno requirements ar may be condone

9.

It h there were no pr irregularity or i dismiss the election petition for s eposit was made along with the p and instead, the tribunal vide dent No. 2 an opportunity to de challan was placed on record onl he defect. Reliance is placed up hman Das versus Jagat Ram [ ally held that deposit of cour mandatory and failure renders the has been further asserted by c n was hopelessly barred by li Election Commission Act, 1994 e filed within forty-five days of election in the present case was ys expired on 29.11.2024, wher unal on 02.12.2024, which was b e record itself that no notificat thorising the Tribunal to hear p s delayed by 47 days. The limitat t be condoned, as the election la re mandatory, unlike in ordinary ed. has also been asserted by learn roper pleadings in the election p illegality in the counting of vot

such non-compliance. In the pres presentation of the election petit e order dated 02.12.2024 illega eposit the court fee at a later d ly on 09.01.2025. Such later depo pon judgment of Hon'ble Supre [(2007) 10 SCC 448] where it rt fee or security at the time e election petition incompetent. counsel for the petitioner that mitation under Section 76 of 4 which provides that an elect the date of election of the return held on 15.10.2024 and the per reas the election petition was tak beyond the prescribed limitation tion had even been issued by petitions by that date, and theref tion in election matters is strict a aw is a special law where statut y civil suits where curable defe ned counsel for the petitioner t petition with respect to any mate tes, and even otherwise no cog

- sent ally ate, osit eme has of ned riod ken n. It fore tory ects that erial

evidence was le merely for the convincing evid pleadings discl respondent No. proceeded to ord

10.

Fur committed proc failed to decide and Rule 52 as a it recorded evi thereafter passe which is contrar

11.

It

15.10.2024, the raised no objec contrary, he si correctness of Returning Offic day. In these c entertained at a contrary to law.

12.

Las the Tribunal on to the evidence ed to establish the same. Recou asking of a party but only upo dence showing prima facie irreg lose any material irregularity 2 have been able to prove anyth der recounting, which is wholly u rther assertion has been made cedural irregularities in proceed the issue of maintainability for a preliminary issue before going idence without even deciding ed the impugned order dated 12 ry to the procedure envisaged by is also submitted that on the e election agent of respondent N tion, nor did respondent No. 2 igned beneath the result shee the result. No complaint wh er or before the Chief Election C circumstances, no subsequent belated stage, and recounting of stly, it is the assertion of the peti issues No. 1 to 7 are totally erro on record and in fact unsupporte

unting of votes cannot be orde on specific pleadings supported gularity. In the present case neit nor the witnesses examined hing in that regard, yet the tribu unsustainable. that the learned Election Tribu ding with the trial inasmuch a r non-compliance with Section into the merits of the case. Inste g this fundamental objection a

2.09.2025 for recounting of vo y the Act and Rules. e date of counting of votes No. 2 was present throughout a himself raise any protest. On et voluntarily acknowledging hatsoever was lodged before Commissioner of Punjab on the s allegations of irregularity can f votes on such vague allegation itioner that the findings recorded oneous and perverse, being contr ed by any material whatsoever. T

- ered by ther by unal unal s it ead, tes, i.e. said be ns is d by rary

Tribunal has fa election petition Rules, 1994, and order recountin therefore, the im

13.

In relied upon a c Courts to asser specific pleadin compliance of m are not maintain

14.

Rel in Preet Mohind held that mere without furnishi recounting. The recounting is n allegations.

15.

Lea Kumar Singh, 1 secrecy of ballo of votes can be and proved. In evidence of illeg ailed to give a categorical find n in light of Section 103 of the d without treating the same as a ng of votes. This is wholly ille mpugned order dated 12.09.2025 support of his contentions, lear catena of judgments of the Hon rt that recounting of votes can ngs and cogent evidence, and th mandatory provisions relating to nable. liance is placed upon the judgm der Singh v. Kirpal Singh, 2001 vague allegations regarding ing material facts and particular e Court categorically held that i ot justified and election tribuna arned counsel has also relied up 1993 AIR SC 367, where the Ho ot papers cannot be permitted to ordered only when irregularity that case, since no objection w gality was produced, the order di

ding on the maintainability of e Act and Rules 52 and 53 of preliminary issue, has proceeded egal and without jurisdiction a is not sustainable in law. rned counsel for the petitioner n'ble Supreme Court and the H nnot be ordered in the absence hat election petitions filed with o deposit of court fee and secu ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co 1(2) RCR(Civil) 657, wherein it w rejection or acceptance of vo rs, cannot be the basis for order in the absence of cogent eviden al cannot proceed merely on b pon Satyanarain Dudhani v. Ud on'ble Supreme Court held that be tinkered lightly, and recount in counting is specifically plea was raised during counting and irecting recount was set aside.

- d to and, has High e of hout urity ourt was tes, ring nce, bald Uday ting

16.

Fur & Ors., 1999 A recounting of v irregularities wi materially impac

17.

Lea judgment of the Ranjit Singh & was categorical course and in th filed only to ma was further obs the Tribunal can

18.

On petitioner has co neither there are of votes. The ag counting and sig on the said date of votes is again Submissions of

19.

Lea order dated 12.0 facts and circum Sarpanch of vi rther reliance is placed upon M. AIR SC 2167, where the Hon' votes cannot be justified solely ithout substantial evidence sho cted the election results. arned counsel for the petitioner h e Hon'ble Punjab and Haryan & Ors., FAO No. 1008 of 1995, ly held that recounting of votes he absence of sufficient materia ake a fishing inquiry into the cou erved that unless evidence of ill nnot sustain an order of recount. n the strength of the above jud ontended that the present case st e proper pleadings nor any evid gent of respondent No. 2 was pre gned the result sheet without pro . Hence, the impugned order dat nst the settled principles of law a f learned counsel for Responde arned counsel for respondent N

09.2025 and has argued that th mstances of the case. It is submit illage Phullo Mithi, Tehsil an

M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Red 'ble Supreme Court reiterated t y by a candidate's allegations owing that such irregularities h has further placed reliance upon na High Court in Mithu Singh decided on 10.10.1995, wherei s cannot be ordered as a matter al or evidence, an election petit unting process must be dismissed legality or irregularity is produc dicial precedents, counsel for tands on an even weaker footing ence of irregularity in the count esent on 15.10.2024 throughout otest, and no complaint was lodg ted 12.09.2025 directing recount and cannot be sustained. ent No.2 / Caveator No. 2 has supported the impugn e same is perfectly justified in tted that the election for the post nd District Bathinda was held

- ddy that of ave h v. n it r of d. It ced, g, as ting ged ting ned t of

15.10.2024, and votes, as he sec respondent No. election and p irregularities oc rendered it liabl

20.

It i illegal manner i boxes were not agent, nor wer Respondent No. table, while th counting proces

21.

It i had in fact been did not inform rejected votes, n conduct created already left the with the petition of counting and the counting wa

22.

On election process to ascertain the d the petitioner was declared e cured 1044 votes while respond 3 secured 572 votes. It is su particularly at the stage of c ccurred, which materially affec e to be set aside. s contended that the election wa in connivance with the petitione properly sealed in the presence re the seals opened in their p . 2 and his agent were not even e petitioner and his supporter s. This deliberate exclusion vitia is further urged that a large num n wrongly counted in favour of t respondent No. 2 or his agen nor did he give any opportunity d grave suspicion of manipulatio village had their votes fraudul ner. The voting staff openly help d preparation of result. It is also as carried out, thereby concealing n the strength of these allegati s was vitiated by serious irregula true will of the electorate is to

elected by a margin of merely dent No. 2 secured 1033 votes a ubmitted that in the course of counting, several illegalities a cted the result of the election a as conducted in a wholly wrong a er and the election staff. The ba of respondent No. 2 or his poll presence at the time of counti allowed to come near the count rs were permitted to sit near ated the fairness of the counting. mber of votes which were rejec the petitioner. The presiding offi nt about the serial numbers of y to them to verify the same. T on. Moreover, some voters who h ently cast by others in conniva ped the petitioner during the proc o submitted that no videography g the true state of affairs. ions, it has been argued that arities and fraud, and the only w order a recount of the votes. Si

- allot ling ing. ting cted ficer This had ance cess y of way

the margin of vo result, and there

23.

Res petitioner with r The petition wa Tribunal. The t defeat the subst prima facie irre matters, proced particularly whe under serious do

24.

It h respondents are election petition with clean han respondent No. the Tribunal, aft recount.

25.

Thu

12.09.2025 is fu the democratic p

26.

In has placed relian ordinate Bench 4595 of 2009 d otes was only 11, any small irreg efore the Tribunal rightly exercis spondent No. 2 has further argu respect to maintainability of the as presented within time and w technical objections regarding tantial right of a candidate to c egularities in counting are show dural lapses should not be allo ere the margin of votes is narr oubt. has also been urged that the repl e evasive and fail to meet the s n. It is contended that the petition nds and has concealed materia 2 was based on clear, specific an ter due consideration of the plea us, it is the stand of respondent N ully justified and legal, having be process. The order requires no in support of his submissions, lear nce on several authorities. He ha of this Court in Smt. Bhajan decided on 12.01.2011, wherein

gularity would materially affect ed its jurisdiction to order recou ued that the objections raised by election petition are misconceiv was entertained by the compet deposit of fee or security can challenge an illegal election wh wn. It is settled law that in elect owed to defeat substantial just row and fairness of the election ies filed by the petitioner and ot specific allegations levelled in ner has not approached the Tribu al facts. The election petition nd detailed pleadings, and theref adings and evidence, rightly orde No. 2 that the impugned order da een passed to protect the sanctity nterference by this Court. rned counsel for respondent No as relied upon the judgment of a Kaur v. Gurmej Kaur, FAO N n it was held that compliance w

- nt. ved. tent nnot here ice, n is ther unal of fore ered ated y of o. 2 co-No.

provisions relati has the discretio good the defic automatically re emphasised tha Commission Ac to be construed be given to the p

27.

Rel Supreme Court wherein it was margin exists be that the election pleadings and e important, whe supported by sp the election proc

28.

Lea Singh v. State o Singh v. Execu Laws Reporter can be applied technicalities ou matters. ing to deposit of security and co on to allow the election petition iency, and that non-complianc esult in dismissal if the defect at the provisions of Section 1 ct, 1994 and Rule 52 of the Punja so rigidly as to defeat the ends o petitioner to supply the requisite liance has also been placed o in Sadhu Singh v. Darshan Sing observed that recount of vote etween the returned candidate an n petitioner has made out a prim evidence on record. The Court h ere allegations of improper rej pecific pleadings, recount can be cess. arned counsel for respondent N of Haryana, AIR 1975 P&H 1 utive Magistrate first class, Jag 135, to contend that the provisio to election petitions in a flex ught not to be allowed to overr

ourt fee is mandatory, the Tribu ner to remove the defect and m ce at the initial stage would is subsequently cured. The Co 103 of the Punjab State Elect ab Panchayat Election Rules are of justice, and opportunity ough deposit. on the judgment of the Hon' gh & Anr. 2006(4) RCR (civil) 5 s may be ordered when a narr nd the defeated candidate, provid ma facie case by placing necess held that while secrecy of ballo jection or counting of votes e directed to uphold the sanctity No. 2 has further relied upon Z 15, and Mahan Singh and Rat graon & ors, 1981 All India La ons of the Code of Civil Proced xible manner, and that procedu ride substantive justice in elect

- unal ake not ourt not ht to 'ble 55 , row ded sary ot is are y of Zile ttan dure

29.

Ad Court in Gursew Hon'ble Suprem pleadings and p or rejected, reco the margin of vo

30.

Rel Bihar, 2004 (2) where the mate number of disp

31.

On No. 2 has argu between the peti of illegal rejecti election petition illegality in orde Relief Granted

32.

By concluded that recounting of v Mithi, to be held designated offic Findings

33.

Hav provisions, the dditionally, reliance is placed on wak Singh v. Avtar Singh, 2006 me Court reiterated that if a prima facie evidence that certain ount may be ordered despite the otes is narrow. liance is also placed upon Cha RCR (Civil) 568, in which it w erial facts pleaded disclose a s puted votes exceeds or is likely n the strength of these authoritie ued that the present case is a f itioner and respondent No. 2 wa ion and fraudulent counting hav n and deposed to by the witnesse ering recount vide impugned ord d By The Tribunal the impugned order dated 1 there were deficiencies in th votes of the election to the off d on 29.09.2025 at 10:00 AM un cials and with police security arra ving considered the pleading evidence adduced, and the rival

n a judgment of Hon'ble Supre 6 (2) RCR (Civil) 463, wherein candidate can establish throu n votes have been wrongly coun secrecy of ballot, particularly wh andrika Prasad Yadav v. State as held that recount can be direc serious irregularity and where y to affect the margin of victo es, learned counsel for respond fit one for recount, as the mar as only 11 votes, and the allegati ve been specifically pleaded in es. Thus, the Tribunal committed der dated 12.09.2025.

12.09.2025, the Election Tribu he counting process and orde fice of Sarpanch of village Phu nder videography, in the presence angements. gs of the parties, the statut l contentions supported by judic

- eme ugh nted hen e of cted ory. dent rgin ons d no unal ered ullo e of tory

precedents, this passed by the El

34.

At limitation and n brushed aside a Commission Ac election petition on 29.11.2024. A by the Tribuna expired. Electio ordinary civil su petition was ex

35.

Cou mandate deposit the challan evid Hon'ble Suprem clearly held that election petition of the Rules als maintainability treating this as a

36.

Com of 11 votes its Hon'ble Suprem Satyanarain Du Court is of the opinion that the lection Tribunal is not legally su the very threshold, the objection non-deposit of the mandatory as a mere technicality. Section ct, 1994 fixes a strict period o n. The election was held on 15. Although the petition is dated 22 l only on 02.12.2024, by whic on law does not provide for uits, the provisions are mandator facie barred by limitation. upled with this, Section 103 of t of security and court fee at the dencing such deposit was placed me Court in Lacchman Das v. J t non-deposit of mandatory secu n incompetent, and belated depos so obliges the Tribunal to dism of the election petition was in d a preliminary issue. ming to the objection raised by elf warranted a recount, this s me Court in Preet Mohinder S udhani v. Uday Kumar Singh

e impugned order dated 12.09.20 ustainable. n raised by the petitioner regard court fee and security cannot n 76 of the Punjab State Elect of 45 days for presentation of

10.2024 and the limitation expi

2.11.2024, it was in fact entertain ch date the limitation had alrea condonation of delay and unl ry and rigid. Therefore, the elect f the Act and Rule 52 of the Ru e time of presentation. Admitted on record only on 09.01.2025. T Jagat Ram (2007) 10 SCC 448 urity at the time of filing renders sit does not cure the defect. Rule miss such a petition. Thus, the v doubt and the Tribunal erred in y respondent No. 2, that the mar submission is not acceptable. T Singh v. Kirpal Singh (supra) a (supra) has categorically held t

- ding be f an ired ned ady like ules dly, The has s an e 53 very not rgin The

secrecy of ballo narrow margin specific pleading respondent No. signed Form 9 with the Retur themselves belie

37.

As counting, the ev Hardev Singh h Gurmail Singh particularly the emerges that th objection was r stated in his cro "It cou tha star was not ver any com cou ot is sacrosanct and recount cann or bald allegations. A recount i gs of irregularity supported by c 2 and his agent were present th without any protest. No contem rning Officer or before the E e the subsequent allegations of m regards the Tribunal's reasonin vidence led does not support s himself appeared as PW1, and pr

(PW3). However, from the testimony of Hardev Singh w he allegations are vague and u raised before the Returning Of ss-examination that: is also correct that my second usin, and he also came to testif at all the candidates' agents an rt of the voting. After the votes s announced to us. We asked the t give any objection in writing. H rbally. It is also correct that afte y written application to any mmission. It is false that any v unting. It is also false that the

not be ordered merely because o is permissible only when there ogent evidence. In the present ca hroughout the counting process a mporaneous complaint was lodg Election Commission. These fa manipulation. g that manipulation occurred in such a finding. Respondent No roduced Darshan Singh (PW2) a cross-examination of witness who has filed election petition unsupported. No contemporane fficer on the date of counting. witness, Gurmel Singh, is my r fy at my request. It is also corr nd candidates were present at were counted only once, the res e presiding officer to recount. I He himself said that he had sai er the election, I have not submit y senior official of the elect videography was done during e counting was done two or th

- of a are ase, ged acts . 2, ses, n, it ous He real rect sult did d it tted

tim onl sign ide poi exh res as atta alc has

38.

The protest. The Ho (2001 (2) PLR SC 367 has c allegations with contradictions in for recount, espe

39.

It w sealed in his pre the counting tab such allegation statements, whi PW3, when sub prove any spec mes. It is also correct that before line complaint regarding this ma natures on exhibit D.01, which i entify my signatures on exhibit D int B, and I identify my signature hibit D.03 at point C, and I iden ult sarpanch exhibit D.04 at po evidence in my petition. We do ached to the election petition reg cohol and money to the polling s s not filed any petition regarding e record (Form-9) bears signat on'ble Supreme Court in Preet 214) and Satyanarain Dudhani categorically held that recount hout material facts or cogent e n the number of rejected votes a ecially when not backed by proo was next urged by respondent esence and that he and his agen ble. However, no reliable materia ns. The witnesses examined by ich do not inspire confidence. T bjected to cross-examination, rev cific illegality. In contrast, the

e this petition, I have not filed a atter. It is correct that I identify is mentioned no.09 at point A, an D.02, the sarpanch election result es on form election result sarpan ntify my signatures on form elect oint D. I have not included any not have any photograph or vid garding the allegations of provid staff. It is correct that Gurtej Sin g the sarpanch election." tures of respondent No. 2 with Mohinder Singh v. Kirpal Sin i v. Uday Kumar Singh 1993 A ting cannot be ordered on b evidence. In the present case, are too minor to constitute a grou of of irregularity. No. 2 that ballot boxes were nt were not allowed to remain n al has been produced to substanti y respondent No. 2 made vag The testimony of PW1, PW2, a vealed contradictions and failed record, including the duly sign

- any my nd I t, at nch list deo ding ngh hout ngh AIR bald und not near iate gue d to

Form 9, carries accordance with

40.

The code. The mand Rules 52 and 53 justice. The reli 2011(2) RCR ( misplaced, as th couched in man petition incomp

41.

The applicable to th Satyanarain Du recount where made. In Lachh petitions must s deposit, failing and compel the could not have b

42.

The finds that:

(i)

(ii) sec s more weight and establishes h the Rules. e Tribunal failed to appreciate t datory requirements under Sectio 3 of the Rules cannot be diluted ance placed by respondent No. 2 (civil) 816 to argue that defic hat judgment itself emphasises t ndatory terms, failure to comply etent. e judgments cited by learned c e facts of the present case. In P udhani (supra), the Hon'ble S pleadings were vague and no hman Das (supra), the Supreme strictly comply with statutory m which they are incompetent. Th e conclusion that the election p been entertained. erefore, when examined in the t the election petition was barred b the mandatory provisions reg curity were not complied with;

s that the result was prepared that election law is a self-contain ons 76, 77, and 103 of the Act a on the ground of doing substan 2 on Bhajan Kaur v. Gurmej Ka iency in deposit can be cured that where statutory provisions y at the time of filing renders counsel for the petitioner are fu Preet Mohinder Singh (supra) a Supreme Court quashed orders contemporaneous objections w e Court made it clear that elect mandates relating to limitation a hese principles squarely apply h petition filed by respondent No otality of circumstances, this Co by limitation; garding deposit of court fee a

- d in ned ntial Kaur d is are ully s of were here o. 2

(iii)

(iv) sub

(v)

43.

For recount of vot accordingly set dismissed.

44.

The

45.

Pen

September 24, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe ) no contemporaneous objection d respondent No. 2 signed the res ) the evidence led was vag bstantiate allegations of irregular a narrow margin of 11 votes, is r these reasons, the impugned es suffers from patent illegali t aside, and the election petiti e petition is allowed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

n was raised at the time of count sult sheet without protest; gue and unreliable and did rity; not sufficient to order recount. order dated 12.09.2025 direct ity and jurisdictional error. It ion filed by respondent No. 2 stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- ting not ting t is 2 is