ORDER 1. In this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of orders passed by the competent authority as per Annexures P- 7 and P-8 by which his certificate of an elected member of Janpad Panchayat was cancelled. 2. The facts which are requisites to be dwelled upon are that the petitioner contested the election of member of Janpad Panchayat along with 13 other candidates. He was allotted the symbol of 'hut' . Formalities of voting, counting and other aspects took place and finally the result was declared and a certificate was issued in his favour on 27.1.2005 contained in Annexure P-2. According to the writ petitioner, one Lalloo Singh who also contested the election submitted a complaint and 'pressurised the authorities concerned with a design to get the result cancelled. It has been asseverated that when the result was declared on 27.1.2005 the petitioner had received 773 votes and respondent No.4 obtained 758 votes prior to counting of votes in respect of booths No. 19, 20, 20-a, 21 and 22. All candidates, respective agents and officers were available and present. All were satisfied with the counting process and no complaint was made. There was a due declaration that the petitioner had won the election by a margin of fifteen votes. When the matter stood thus, as pleaded, there was a collusion amongst the authorities and the respondents 1 and 2 and on 29.1.2005 at Block Office Karkeli opened the ballot box and tampered the votes cast in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 cancelled the result on 31.1.2005 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is pleaded that on 2.2.2005 the respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner under rule 84 (1) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for brevity "the Rules") that there was an erroneous tabulation in respect of booth No. 21. It was mentioned therein that though the petitioner had received 19 votes and Hari Prasad Kol had obtained 100 votes, the petitioner had been shown to have received 119 votes and Hari Kol received zero vote. It was mentioned therein that though the petitioner had received 19 votes and Hari Prasad Kol had obtained 100 votes, the petitioner had been shown to have received 119 votes and Hari Kol received zero vote. It was pointed out that there was some error which was required to be corrected and the petitioner was required to be present at 3:00 p.m. on 4.2.2005 in the office of the respondent No.1, the Collector-cum-District Election Officer, District Umaria. 3. As set forth, the petitioner was unaware that his result had been cancelled despite all the formalities having been complied with as he was busy in the election of Up-Sarpanch and only came to know about the facts for the first time on 4.2.2005. He was required to be personally present in the office of the Collector for initiation of a proceeding under rule 84 (1) of the Rules. He submitted an application through his counsel seeking adjournment to submit a reply. Eventually in the garb of rectification of the tabulation sheet, the Returning Officer who had declared the result after counting of votes directed to cancel the same because of the faulty tabulation in spite of the fact that the petitioner after due adherence to the process was given the certificate of a returned candidate. It is contended that the Collector recounted the votes without any kind of legal authority. It is pleaded that no objection was raised as envisaged under rule 77 (2) of the Rules and as per rule 80 of the Rules no written demand was made. It is put forth that the cancellation of result was an afterthought and the procedure adopted by the respondents is unknown to law. The action of recounting has seriously been criticized. It is also put forth that all norms and rules have been thrown to the wind and the petitioner's election has been cancelled by order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Returning Officer. 4. As the facts are not in dispute and a pure question of law is required to be dealt with, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to address this Court for final hearing without filing any return. 5. Mr. V.K. Shukla and Mr. 4. As the facts are not in dispute and a pure question of law is required to be dealt with, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to address this Court for final hearing without filing any return. 5. Mr. V.K. Shukla and Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, have submitted that once a certificate is granted to a person as returned candidate, the same cannot be cancelled by opening the ballot box and the only remedy is to institute an election dispute before the Election Tribunal as envisaged under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "the Act"). 6. Per contra, Mr. P.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 have submitted that the rule in question confers enough power to rectify the defect and when the power for recounting has been conferred and that has been done and the matter is tell-tale, no error can be perceived in the action taken. 7. The centroidal issue that has emerged for consideration is whether after a declaration certificate has been issued, the same can be cancelled by the District Returning Officer. On a perusal of Annexure P-2 it is clear as crystal that the petitioner was a candidate for post of member of Janpad Panchayat Karkeli and had been elected and a certificate was issued in his favour on 27.1.2005. Thereafter a notice was issued as per Annexure P-3 indicating that in respect of booth No. 21 there was erroneous counting of votes as there was overwriting. It was mentioned that as per complaint in respect of the said booth, the returned candidate got 19 votes and the said Hari Prasad Kol obtained 100 votes but due to overwriting it was mentioned that the petitioner obtained 119 votes and Hari Prasad Kol got zero vote as a result of which there had to be hearing on the same. As is perceptible, the Returning Officer required the presence of the petitioner. On 31.1.2005 the Returning Officer expressed the view that upon due inquiry it was found that the petitioner had received less number of votes and the grant of certificate in respect of election, being faulty, was cancelled. As is perceptible, the Returning Officer required the presence of the petitioner. On 31.1.2005 the Returning Officer expressed the view that upon due inquiry it was found that the petitioner had received less number of votes and the grant of certificate in respect of election, being faulty, was cancelled. The Collector on 4.2.2005, vide Annexure P-8, took note of the fact that the petitioner despite service of notice did not accept the notice and also did not participate in the proceeding. It was contended before the Collector that the petitioner had been given 100 votes erroneously though as an actual fact he received 19 votes and Hari Prasad Kol got 100 votes whereas he was shown to have received zero votes. The Collector opened the ballot box, inspected the same and found that the petitioner had secured 19 votes and Hari Prasad Kol got 100 votes. He found this from the ballot box and also counted the votes and arrived at the conclusion that the same was true. He found that there was overwriting in respect of ballot papers received by the petitioner as a result of which he secured 119 votes instead of 19 votes and Hari Prasad Kol received zero votes instead of 100 votes. The Collector found that there was overwriting and accordingly in exercise of power conferred upon him under rule 84 (1) of the Rules he cancelled the certificate granted in favour of the petitioner. 8. On a scrutiny of Annexure P-2 it is evincible that the petitioner was given the certificate as per Form No. 25 under rule 83 of the Rules. The same has been cancelled vide Annexure P-7. Rule 83 of the Rules reads as under: "83. Grant of certificate of election to the returned candidate -- As soon as may be after a candidate has been declared elected under rule 81, the Returning Officer shall grant to such candidate a certificate of election in Form 25 and obtain from the candidate an acknowledgement of its receipt duly signed by him." 9. Rule 84 of the Rules empowers the District Election Officer to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors. The same reads as under: "84. Rule 84 of the Rules empowers the District Election Officer to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors. The same reads as under: "84. Powers of District Election Officer to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors -- (1) The District Election Officer may at any time but not later than 15 days from the day of declaration of result under rule 81, either suo motu or on a report of the Returning Officer, correct, by an order any clerical or arithmetical mistake or error in the result sheet in Form 16, 17, 18 or 19 or in the return of election in Form 20, 21, 22 or 23 as the case may be: Provided that no correction or amendment shall be made except after giving a notice to all contesting candidates from the ward or constituency in question, about the date, time and place for taking up the matter for such correction. (2) An order passed by the District Election Officer under sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and contain reason therefor and a corrected copy of the return of election in Form 20, 21, 22 or 23 as the case may be, duly signed and certified by the District Election Officer shall be sent to the Returning Officer for grant of certificate of election to the candidate declared elected as a result of such correction. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall confer any power or authority upon the District Election Officer to open any envelope containing counted ballot papers or to direct recounting of votes. (4) The certificate of election in Form 25 under rule 83, if already granted by the Returning Officer to a candidate before an order is passed by the District Election Officer under sub-rule (1), shall be deemed to have been recalled and cancel1ed." 10. Rule 87 of the Rules deals with production and inspection of election papers which reads as under: "87. Rule 87 of the Rules deals with production and inspection of election papers which reads as under: "87. Production and inspection of election papers -- While in the custody of the District Election Officer -- (a) the packets of unused ballot papers; (b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected; (c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers; and (d) the packets of marked copies of the voter list; shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court or authority." 11. On a scrutiny of the order passed vide Annexure P-8 by the Collector, it is clear as noon day that the Returning Officer had received certain complaints from Lalloo Singh respondent No.4 herein. The Returning Officer opened the ballot box and recounted the votes. On a perusal of sub-rule (3) of rule 84 it is clear as crystal that sub-rule (1) of the said rule does not confer any power or authority upon the District Election Officer to open any envelope containing counted ballot papers or to direct recounting of votes Submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that sub-rule (4) of rule 8 empowers the Returning Officer to recall or cancel the certificate granted in Form No. 25 In the obtaining factual matrix there is a complaint made with regard to tabulation. The tabulation was not related to correction of any arithmetical or clerical error. The complaint that was lodged pertained to tampering of tabulation sheet by overwriting in respect of votes cast in favour of a different candidate The Returning Officer opened the envelope containing ballot papers to find out whether there is overwriting or not. Sub-rule (3) of rule 84 categorically and unequivocally lays a postulate that the District Election Officer has no power to open the envelope containing ballot papers or to direct recounting of votes The said rule has two limbs. There is restraint to open any envelope containing counted ballot papers and further there is enjoinment for recounting of votes. In the case at hand the District Election Officer has opened the envelope and recounted the votes. He has done the same without any kind of authority On the contrary, he has done something which Rules specifically and precisely prohibit. There is restraint to open any envelope containing counted ballot papers and further there is enjoinment for recounting of votes. In the case at hand the District Election Officer has opened the envelope and recounted the votes. He has done the same without any kind of authority On the contrary, he has done something which Rules specifically and precisely prohibit. The election candidate who has been given the certificate in Form No. 25 cannot suffer a dislodgement because of recounting of this nature as the same is prohibited by the Rules The rule has a sacrosanct purpose. The Returning Officer cannot open the ballot box and direct recount of votes after a candidate was declared elected. Whether there is casting of votes in a proper manner or not or whether there has been improper counting, the same is not to be dealt with at that stage by the District Election Officer. The same can be dealt with in an election dispute preferred w1der section 122 of the Act. 12. In this context, I may profitably refer to rule 21 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "1995 Rules"). The said rule provides as under: "21. The same can be dealt with in an election dispute preferred w1der section 122 of the Act. 12. In this context, I may profitably refer to rule 21 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "1995 Rules"). The said rule provides as under: "21. Grounds for declaring election to be void -- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion –- (a) that on the date of his election the returned candidate who was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns returned candidate has been materially affected – (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by a corrupt practice having been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by a person acting with the consent of the candidate or his agent; or (iii) by the improper acceptance, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the specified officer shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the prescribed authority a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied: (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the instructions and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election; and (c) that in all other respect the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any his agent; then the prescribed authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." On a scanning of the aforesaid rule it is perceptible that the election can be declared void on the ground numbers (d) (i) to (iv) mentioned in sub-rule (1) and the same would come into play in a case of this nature. 13. It is worth noting here that election in a democratic polity cannot be treated in a playful manner. It is to be treated with utmost gravity. Almost a century and a halfback Abraham Lincoln had proclaimed, "The ballot is stronger than the bullet." As on today democracy is regarded to have been founded on ascendant ideology. In a democratic governance Rule of Law prevails and every authority is required to act as per law and the authorities who perform judicial or quasi judicial acts have to behave as the guardians of law. Nothing that law does not permit should be allowed to be done as that eventually leads to crucification of democracy. Law does not countenance any kind of deviancy. In the case at hand, as is seen, sub-rule (3) of rule 84 prohibits for recount of votes and hence, certificate of result that had been granted could not have been recalled or deemed to have been recalled or cancelled by taking recourse to recount of votes. What is rectifiable is clerical or arithmetical error. I am not disposed to state here what are clerical or arithmetical mistakes. What is imperative to note is that recount of votes to find out the truth is not permissible as the Rules prohibit the same. Therefore, the same cannot come under the basic and fundamental conception of correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. 14. I am not disposed to state here what are clerical or arithmetical mistakes. What is imperative to note is that recount of votes to find out the truth is not permissible as the Rules prohibit the same. Therefore, the same cannot come under the basic and fundamental conception of correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis the order of cancellation of certificate as contained in Annexure P-7 and the order passed vide Annexure P-8 are quashed and the petitioner would be deemed to have been elected to the post of member of Janpad Panchayat Karkeli and his election can only be called in question by way of an election petition as permissible in law. At this stage it is appropriate to mention that the petitioner had prayed for interim order to participate in the voting for election of the President and Vice-President. This Court on 11.2.2005 had passed the following order: "At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared a returned candidate, but the District Election Officer, by the impugned order, has cancelled the certificate issued by the Returning Officer in favour of the petitioner. The District Election Officer was having no jurisdiction to cancel the aforesaid certificate. It is further contended that because of this, the petitioner has been debarred to contest the election of Vice-Precident, Janpad Panchayat Karkeli and the impugned order may be stayed so that the petitioner may contest the election of the aforesaid office. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 on the ground that at present the petitioner is not a returned candidate and respondent No.4 is a returned candidate. The order passed by the District Election Officer is a reasoned order which is based on the facts and in fact the Collector has exercised his jurisdiction under rule 84 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam and the order is based on some reasonings and the petitioner is not entitled for any interim writ. The order passed by the District Election Officer is a reasoned order which is based on the facts and in fact the Collector has exercised his jurisdiction under rule 84 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam and the order is based on some reasonings and the petitioner is not entitled for any interim writ. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondents 1 to 3 may hold the election of the Vice-President, as the case may be, of the Janpad Panchayat, but the said election shall be subject to further order in this petition." The petitioner could not participate in the election of Vice-President as he was not treated as the returned candidate. As this Court has held cancellation of declaration of his election to be invalid and the election of the Vice-President was subject to the result of this petition, election of the Vice-President, Janpad Panchayat Karkeli also stands quashed. It is directed that fresh election has to be held for the post of Vice-President. This order is passed as it was directed that the election shall be subject to the result of this petition and, therefore, the quashment of the same is a natural corollary as the petitioner was deprived to contest the election and the respondent No.4 was made eligible to contest the election which he could not have done under normal circumstances. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only).