On account of recounting there has been a massive shift in the number of rejected votes, the Court noted.
“The mandate of the electors is reflected through the votes polled by them. It is the duty of the counting officers to count the polled votes properly. Valid votes ought not to be rejected and the invalid ones ought not to be counted. The votes polled cannot be counted over and over again. There has to be an end; a finality has to be reached.”
The Court noted that in the initial voting, the authorities had declared at least 127 votes as invalid as the ballot papers did not possess the signature of the Presiding Officer. However, in the second round of counting, more 192 votes were held to be invalid. And all this was done when the petitioner and his polling agents were not present in the counting centre.
“It is very strange to note that in the recounting process as many as 192 additional ballot papers stood rejected though at the time of initial counting 127 ballot papers were already rejected. The petitioner who won by six votes was later declared loser by 105 votes. The same implies that a good number of votes which were initially found to have been polled in favour of the petitioner later stood rejected,” the single-judge opined.
She further noted that the TMC candidate, who was declared elected after recounting, did not follow the rules and had raised a dispute regarding the initial counting only after the counting of Zilla Parishad was commenced.
The Court further noted that the Block Development Officer (BDO), who had decided to recount the votes, did not provide an opportunity to the petitioners or other candidates to inspect the 192 votes, which were held invalid in the second round of counting.
“Recounting the votes in the absence of the winning candidate, amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice embedded in the guidelines. Manipulation of result, as alleged by the candidate, cannot be ruled out. Transparency and fairness in the process of counting/recounting ought not to be compromised in any manner whatsoever,” the Court observed.
With these observations, the bench ordered the authorities to treat the petitioner to be an elected candidate instead of the TMC candidate.
Source: Barandbench
