JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.:- The present petition filed by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 9.8.2006 vide which his plea for a re-count was declined by the learned Election Tribunal for want of compliance with the provisions of Rule 69(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) which requires that the candidate desiring re­count must make a demand in writing for the purpose before the Presiding Officer. 2. The petitioner lost the panchayat election to the Office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sikanderpur to respondent No.1 - Kishan Lal. Thereafter, he preferred an election petition on the authority of Section 176(i) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). That plea of his was declined by the learned that the plea cannot be allowed because ‘the reasons for rejection of the said votes have not been particularly given in the application. 3. Apart therefrom, the learned Tribunal held that a plea for re­count before the Election Tribunal is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had not filed a plea for the purpose aforementioned before the Returning Officer in terms of the Provisions of Rule 69(2) of the Rules. 4. In support of the plea that the impugned order deserves invalidation, reliance on behalf of the petitioner is placed upon Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi & others, AIR 2003 SC 320. As against it, respondent No.1 relies upon a ruling rendered by this Court in Civil Revision No.4606 of 2006 decided on 3.10.2007 (Krishan Kumar Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hansi and others). 5. Rule 69 of the Rules reads as under: (1) After the completion of the counting the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or such other officers authorised by him shall record in the result sheet in Forms mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 66 the total number of votes polled for each candidate and announce the same. (2) After such announcement has been made a candidate or, in his absence (counting) agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or the other officer authorised by him, for recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) After such announcement has been made a candidate or, in his absence (counting) agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or the other officer authorised by him, for recount of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (3) On such an application being made the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or the officer authorised by him shall Officer (Panchayat) or the officer authorised by him shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part of may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (4) Every decision of the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or such other officer authorised by him, under sub-rule (3) shall be in writing and contain the reason therefor. (5) If the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or such other officer authorised by him, decides under sub-rule (3) 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. (6) After the total number of votes polled for each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (5) the Returning Officer (Panchayat) or the 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 candidates and (counting) agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (2). 6. An absolutely similar Rule was the subject of interpretation by framed under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (1993), its similarity to the relevant rule of the Act is apparent. Section 80 thereof reads as under: “80. 6. An absolutely similar Rule was the subject of interpretation by framed under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (1993), its similarity to the relevant rule of the Act is apparent. Section 80 thereof reads as under: “80. 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 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 77 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 candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub­ rule (1). 7. As would be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the provisions under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (1993) and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, these are identical. In that case, the Election Tribunal had directed a re-count. The result declared in the light thereof was entirely different from the one declared initially. 7. As would be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the provisions under the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam (1993) and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, these are identical. In that case, the Election Tribunal had directed a re-count. The result declared in the light thereof was entirely different from the one declared initially. The Sub Divisional Officer had declared the loser to have won the election. In a Writ Petition filed against that order, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer who undertook an exercise of re-count. The Sub Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties and passing an order of re-count, again declared the initial loser to be the winner. In a Writ Petition filed by the loser on re-count, the High Court relied upon Smt. Ram Rati Vs. Saroj Devi, AIR 1997 SC 3072 and recorded a finding that the re-count was not feasible unless the affected party first applied in writing to the Returning Officer for a re-count. The matter came up before a Bench of Two Judges of the Apex Court which had reservations about the principle laid down in Ram Rati’s case (supra). It was in that eventuality that the matter was placed before a three-Judges Bench of that Court. It was held by the Apex Court that: “11. Rule 81 also provides that after the counting of the votes, the Returning Officer shall prepare a return and declare the candidate who has the largest number of votes to have been elected. Under Rule 83, a certificate is to be granted to the returned candidate who has been declared elected. Under Rule 84 after the certificate has been granted, the election officer or the Returning Officer can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. 12. Thus after declaration of results the Returning Officer has no power either to direct recount or to change the results of the election. Once the result is declared, the only remedy of an aggrived party is an Election Petition under Section 122. 13. In this case, as stated above, the Appellant had been orally told that he had won. He only came to know that Respondent No.1 had been declared elected after the result was declared. At this stage, he could not have approached the Returning Officer for recount. The only remedy, therefore, available to the Appellant was to file an Election Petition. In this case, as stated above, the Appellant had been orally told that he had won. He only came to know that Respondent No.1 had been declared elected after the result was declared. At this stage, he could not have approached the Returning Officer for recount. The only remedy, therefore, available to the Appellant was to file an Election Petition. 14. In view of Section 122 and the rules, we are unable to agree with the ratio laid down in Ram Rati’s case. It is not correct to hold that, in an election petition, after the declaration of the result, the Court or Tribunal cannot direct recounting of votes unless the party has first applied in writing for recounting of votes. There is no prohibition in the Act or under the Rules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal to direct a recounting of the votes. Even otherwise a party may not know that the recount is necessary till after result is declared. At this stage, it would not be possible for him to apply for recounting to the Returning Officer. His only remedy would be to file an Election Petition under section 122. In such a case, the Court or the Tribunal is bound to consider the plea and where case is made out, it may direct recount depending upon the evidence led by the parties. In the present case, there was obvious error in declaring the result. We, therefore, held that the ratio laid down in Ram Rati’s case is not correct.” 8. In the light of the Apex Court’s judicial pronouncement noticed above, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the ruling of this Court is mis-conceived. As apparent from a perusal of the judgment rendered by this Court in Krishan Kumar’s case (supra), the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Rati Ram’s case (supra) does not appear to have been brought to the notice of this Court. 9. In view, thus, of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned order deserves invalidation and it is so ordered accordingly. Order dated 9.8.2006 shall stand set aside. The matter shall be listed before the Election Tribunal on 15.12.2007. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh within a period of seven days from that date. 9. In view, thus, of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned order deserves invalidation and it is so ordered accordingly. Order dated 9.8.2006 shall stand set aside. The matter shall be listed before the Election Tribunal on 15.12.2007. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh within a period of seven days from that date. The disposal of the matter has been ordered to be time-bound in view of the fact that a panchayat would have a tenure of five years and it is in the interest of justice that the matter is disposed of with absolute expedition. --------------------