ORDER 1. NONE APPEARS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BY WHICH THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 IMPUGNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF HER ELECTION WAS ALLOWED. 4. THE ELECTION WAS HELD ON 17-6-2002 FOR THE GRAM PANCHAYAT PRADHAN IN DISTRICT AZAMGARH VILLAGE BARJALA, TAHSIL SAGARI. THE RESULT WAS DECLARED ON 25-6-2002. RESPONDENT 1 WAS THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE HAVING DEFEATED THE APPELLANT BY FOUR VOTES. THE APPELLANT FILED AN ELECTION PETITION ON 21-7-2002 IN WHICH SEVERAL GROUNDS WERE TAKEN INCLUDING THE GROUND THAT PERSONS WHO HAVE VOTED WERE IN FACT EITHER DEAD OR NOT PRESENT. THE ELECTION PETITION WAS THEREAFTER AMENDED AND A FURTHER GROUND WAS TAKEN TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MATGANANA ADHIKARI (COUNTING OFFICER) HAD NOT COUNTED ALL THE VOTES, THAT INVALID VOTES HAD BEEN COUNTED AND THAT THE VALID VOTES OF THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN COUNTED ALONG WITH THE INVALID VOTES. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST WAS ONLY FOUR. A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE ELECTION PETITION DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. WHILE THE EVIDENCE WAS BEING TAKEN, AN APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THE BALLOT PAPERS SHOULD BE TALLIED AND COUNTED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. AN ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27-7-2001 BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DIRECTING THAT THE "PAPER CONCERNED SHALL BE GOT TALLIED. AFTER TALLYING AND THE PERUSAL OF THE EVIDENCE ONLY, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED WHETHER RE-COUNTING IS ESSENTIAL OR NOT". 5. THE TALLYING WAS DONE ON 3-8-2001. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS IN THE TALLY-SHEET WAS MENTIONED AS 1283 WHEREAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS IN FACT CAST WERE 1289. CLEARLY THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS FOUND. THE RE-COUNTING WAS DONE. IT WAS FOUND THAT ON SOME VOTES MORE THAN TWO THUMB IMPRESSIONS HAD BEEN MADE AND THAT SEVERAL VALID VOTES WHICH HAD BEEN CAST IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN BUNDLED TOGETHER WITH THE INVALID VOTES. UPON A FRESH RE-COUNTING IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GOT 592 VOTES AND THE RESPONDENT HAD GOT 577 VALID VOTES AND THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES HAD GOT 26 AND 21 VOTES RESPECTIVELY. UPON A FRESH RE-COUNTING IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GOT 592 VOTES AND THE RESPONDENT HAD GOT 577 VALID VOTES AND THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES HAD GOT 26 AND 21 VOTES RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED 15 MORE VOTES THAN THE RESPONDENT, THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BEING THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DECLARED THE APPELLANT AS HAVING BEEN LEGALLY ELECTED GRAM PRADHAN OF BAJLA MANGEPUR. A DETAILED ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE SAME DATE, THE DECISION HAVING BEEN PRONOUNCED IN AN OPEN COURT. THE DETAILED ORDER MERELY EXPATIATED ON THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED IN WHICH THE REASONS FOR RE-COUNTING HAD BEEN BRIEFLY STATED. 6. THE RESPONDENT PREFERRED A REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AZAMGARH. THE REVISION PETITION WAS DISMISSED. THE ONLY GROUND WHICH WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD WRONGLY DISPOSED OF THE QUESTION OF TALLYING AND RE-COUNTING ON THE SAME DATE WITHOUT GIVING THE RESPONDENT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS FAR AS THIS ISSUE WAS CONCERNED IT WAS REJECTED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY BY STATING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD IN FACT BEEN GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE BUT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY ALSO REFERRED TO SECTION 12(G) OF THE UTTAR PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1947 AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WAS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED. 7. THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER FILED A WRIT PETITION IMPUGNING THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS WELL AS OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. THE HIGH COURT AFTER NOTING MOST OF THE FACTS AS RECORDED ABOVE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DIRECT RE-COUNTING OF THE VOTES ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN V. P.J. FRANCIS1. 8. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE HIGH COURT MERELY HELD THAT THE FACTS A REVEALED BY RE-COUNT CANNOT THEMSELVES BE RELIED UPON BY THE ELECTION PETITIONER TO SUPPORT THE PRAYER TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF RE-COUNTING, UNLESS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD ANTERIOR TO THE ACTUAL RE-COUNTING WAS SUFFICIENT. IN THIS CASE, THE TALLYING WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH RE-COUNTING WAS ORDERED. THE DIFFERENCE OF SIX VOTES IN THE BALLOT SHEET AND THE NUMBER OF THE VOTES CAST WAS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE SINCE THE MARGIN B OF DEFEAT WAS ONLY FOUR VOTES. IN THIS CASE, THE TALLYING WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH RE-COUNTING WAS ORDERED. THE DIFFERENCE OF SIX VOTES IN THE BALLOT SHEET AND THE NUMBER OF THE VOTES CAST WAS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE SINCE THE MARGIN B OF DEFEAT WAS ONLY FOUR VOTES. IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD PASSED AN ORDER FOR RE-COUNTING ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN ADJOURNED ON MANY DATES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT WRIT PETITIONER. AS WE HAVE SET OUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITYS REASONING EARLIER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY IN DIRECTING THE RE-COUNT IN ANY WAY FALLS FOUL OF THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN ACHUTHANANDAN CASE1. THE HIGH COURT ALSO WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS UNDUE HASTE IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED AND THAT THE UNDUE HASTE WAS NOT WARRANTED. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND A COMPLAINT OF EFFICIENCY WHEN THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS RELATING TO ELECTIONS. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT TO THIS COURT THAT UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES OF THE U.P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1947 THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW A D SUMMARY PROCEDURE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE AFORESAID REASONING FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND MUST BE SET ASIDE. 9. WE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THE APPEAL WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS.