ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge is made to Annexure P-1 dated 30-11-2000 passed by respondent No. 9 Election Tribunal in a petition filed under section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993. Even though various grounds are urged in the petition and were advanced during the time of hearing by the learned counsel's appearing for the parties but in view of the law with regard to recounting of votes settled by judgment of the Supreme Court and this court, I propose to deal with the said question for the present before adverting to other grounds. 2. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch in the election of Gram Panchayat Pali (Dirman) held on 28-1-2000. Counting of votes took place on 30-1-2000 at Gohad and after counting, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch having obtained 444 votes whereas respondent No. 1 obtained 438 votes. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent filed a petition challenging the election under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 and it was contended by him that initially he had obtained 448 votes and the petitioner had obtained 443 votes but 10 votes were declared as invalid because of which the petitioner was declared as elected. It is the case of the respondents that before the Election Tribunal he moved an application for recounting but the same was not considered by the respondent No. 9. 3. By the impugned order the respondent 9 has ordered for recounting of the votes pending disposal of the election petition. Even though various grounds have been raised like non maintainability of the election petition as the same is not properly signed, pleadings not being proper, no issues framed. One of the ground raised is that the petitioner did not raise any objection when the results were declared and as he had not prayed for recounting by filing appropriate application before the Returning Officer, the order of recounting cannot be sustained. Rule 80 of the election rules reads as under:- Recount of votes. One of the ground raised is that the petitioner did not raise any objection when the results were declared and as he had not prayed for recounting by filing appropriate application before the Returning Officer, the order of recounting cannot be sustained. Rule 80 of the election rules reads as under:- Recount of votes. - (1) After an announcement has been made by the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, of the total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of rule 77, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or his counting agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer or such officer authorised by him, for a recount of all or any of the votes already counted, stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) On such an application being made the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor. (4) If the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him decides under sub-rule (2) to allow an application either in whole or in part, he shall- (a) count the ballot papers again in accordance with his decision; (b) amend the result sheet to the extent necessary after such recount; and (c) announce the amendment so made by him (5) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (2) of rule 17 or sub-rule (4) the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall complete and sign the result sheet and no application for a recount shall be entertained thereafter: Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of the counting until the candidate and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (1). (6) The counted ballot papers shall be bundled and kept in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 77. (6) The counted ballot papers shall be bundled and kept in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 77. (7) Result sheets in Form 16, 17, 18 and 19 for Panch, Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat and Member of Zila Panchayat respectively, prepared by such other officers as are authorised by the Returning Officer, shall be submitted by them, in separate envelops to the Returning Officer for compilation and tabulation of votes polled by each candidate. (8) The Returning Officer on receipt of result sheets under sub-rule (7) shall enter or cause to be entered the total number of votes polled by each candidate contesting for a seat of Sarpanch, Member of Janpad Panchayat or Member of Zila Panchayat at each Polling station of the concerned constituency in subsequent part or parts of Form 17, 18 and 19 respectively and complete and sign the result sheet. (Emphasis supplied) 4. From the aforesaid, it is clear that for claiming recounting of votes a written application has to be made to the Returning Officer immediately after the results are declared. Making a written application is mandatory for claiming recounting of votes. In the present case except for the averments made by the petitioner in the election petition, there is nothing on record to indicate that such an application was made. Witnesses who had appeared before the election Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner have categorically stated that respondent No. 1 never raised any objection and did not make any application for recounting. In this regard the evidence of Devram Kushwaha, Brijendra Singh are relevant. These witnesses have categorically stated that no application was filed by the respondent for recounting of votes. In his own statement which is on record at page 35 of the paper book, the respondent 1 has simply stated that he had made a petition for recounting but in cross examination he says that no action was taken on the said application. He does not have copy of the said application but he made a complaint by fax after two days to certain authorities. However, respondent No. 1 has not filed a copy of the said application along with the election petition. In fact no such application is on record in the proceeding. 5. He does not have copy of the said application but he made a complaint by fax after two days to certain authorities. However, respondent No. 1 has not filed a copy of the said application along with the election petition. In fact no such application is on record in the proceeding. 5. Except for his oral statement, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had filed an application as required under Rule 80 after declaration of results. On the contrary the statement of witnesses indicates that no such application was filed. Even if the Returning Officer had refused to accept the application the petitioner could have filed the copy of the same along with his election petition or along with his return. In the present petition no such application is on record, even the time of filing the application, the time of sending complaint by fax, receipt of sending of the fax and other documents have not been produced. On the contrary in view of the material that has come on record it has to be held that no such application as required under Rule 80 was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Returning Officer. 6. The question therefore would be as to whether recounting could be directed in view of the aforesaid as the petitioner has not filed any application for recounting. This aspect of matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ramrati vs. Saroj Devi, AIR 1994 SC 3072. In the said case arising out of Panchayat election under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election Rules 1994, it has been held by the Supreme Court that unless an application has been filed in accordance with the rules in writing at the very first instance, no orders for recounting can be made, it has been held in the said case that it is incumbent upon the candidate or his agent, to make an application in writing and give reasons to in support thereof, while seeking recounting as this is the requirement of the rule. The aforesaid judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Lakhan Lal Patel vs. State of M.P. and others, 2002(3) MPLJ 41 : 2002 (1) MPJR 414 and it has been held in the aforesaid case that for the purpose of recounting of votes in a election petition, no order can be passed for recounting until and unless an application is submitted for the same before the Returning Officer immediately after declaration of the results. It has been held in the aforesaid case that recounting is permissible only if request is made by filing written application in accordance with the provisions of Rule 80 and if such an application is not made then no orders for recounting can be passed by the Election Tribunal. 7. In view of the aforesaid well settled principle of law, there is no doubt that the impugned order which directed for recounting of votes cannot be sustained as no application for recounting was presented by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 80. As the order impugned is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. The other ground raised need not be adverted to for the present. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 9. The order impugned Annexure P-1 directing for recounting of votes is quashed. The Election Tribunal shall proceed to decide the election dispute on merit in accordance with law. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-1 is quashed.