MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS versus RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

MAHANT RAM PRAKASH DASS versus RAMESH CHANDRA AND ORS.

No foundation was laid for recount either before the Returning Officer or in the Election Petition. The appellant's agent certified correctness of the counting for the first five rounds. No irregularity was pleaded or substantiated for the sixth round. Corrections were only in copies, not the original Form 20. Demand for recount requires precise valid grounds and a prima facie case of error; small margin by itself is insufficient. Therefore, claim for recount was rightly rejected.

Parties
Appellant: Mahant Ram Prakash Dass; Respondent: Ramesh Chandra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Dismissing Election Petition
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recount of Votes, Irregularities in Counting, Procedure Under Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
Election Law Recount of Votes Irregularities in Counting Procedure Under Conduct of Election Rules, 1961

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahant Ram Prakash Dass

Appellant

Ramesh Chandra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Dismissing Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether irregularities in counting of votes justify recount.
  2. 2 Whether small margin of victory is sufficient ground for recount.
  3. 3 Whether valid and precise grounds for recount were laid.

Ratio Decidendi

No foundation was laid for recount either before the Returning Officer or in the Election Petition. The appellant's agent certified correctness of the counting for the first five rounds. No irregularity was pleaded or substantiated for the sixth round. Corrections were only in copies, not the original Form 20. Demand for recount requires precise valid grounds and a prima facie case of error; small margin by itself is insufficient. Therefore, claim for recount was rightly rejected.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs