Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was the winning candidate in election for Mukhiya. After results were declared, respondent no. 7 challenged his election by way of Election Petition No. 33 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal, Samastipur. 3. The present writ petitioner challenges the order passed therein dated 2.4.2007. As many as eight issues were framed by the trial court. All have been answered as against the election petitioner except one which relates to recount. It is that part of the order, that is, under challenge before this court. 4. Respondent No. 7-the election petitioner has appeared and filed an exhaustive counter affidavit. 5. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 6. The petitioner submits that it is a matter of record that after counting in which reverifications were done as there were lot of protests (though not written) by both the sides. Result was declared and both sides i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 7 secured equal number of votes. Thereafter in presence of both the parties and with their consent, lottery was drawn up and the petitioner was declared elected. In such a situation once respondent no. 7 has elected and opted for lottery she cannot now be permitted to turn around and challenge the procedure as adopted. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondent no. 7-the election petitioner that it is admitted, as a matter of fact, that there were protest at the time of counting though not in writing which led to recounting (recounting is not admitted by the petitioner but reverification). All this would indicate that the counting was not proper. Respondent No. 7 states that votes were counted thrice and as such prays for 4th time counting in presence of both. In my view, once respondent no. 7 accepted the declaration of final votes and elected to and agreed to decide the fate of two candidates by lottery (draw of lots), which was done in their presence, then respondent no. 7 having exercised an option, the doctrine of election precludes him from challenging the thing at a subsequent stage. Respondent No. 7 had the option of not accepting the lottery and proceedings to the count but records clearly shows that this was not the situation. Respondent No. 7 was present and agreed to lottery. 7 having exercised an option, the doctrine of election precludes him from challenging the thing at a subsequent stage. Respondent No. 7 had the option of not accepting the lottery and proceedings to the count but records clearly shows that this was not the situation. Respondent No. 7 was present and agreed to lottery. This would not be without accepting the votes as finally declared. In my view that itself is sufficient to stop all further action. A party cannot be permitted to resile from an option exercised by it. She had choice not to agree or to agree. Having agreed, in law, she cannot now be permitted to turn around and challenge the counting itself. Thus, in my view, once she had accepted the counting and the result so declared, it was not open for her to urge for recounting at all. All that became history by the option exercised by her. 7. In that view of the matter the order of the election tribunal ordering recount cannot be sustained. 8. The election petitioner-respondent no. 7 submits that she had even disputed this part of the proceedings itself. On her behalf it is submitted that it was under misconception, her signature was taken. If that be so, then it was open to respondent no. 7 to institute a suit, (not election petition) for declaring that her signature was fradulently or otherwise wrongly taken on that document which then would not bind her and on that declaration she can pray that the proceedings be declared null and void. No such step was taken as the election tribunal finding her any such assertion to be even prima facie correct and acceptable. 9. On this short issue the writ petition is allowed.