Judgment This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3-9-2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Kannod, Dist. Dewas allowing the election petition of the respondent No. 2 and declaring her elected as Sarpanch. 2. In brief the petitioner along with respondent No. 2 and other candidates had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kheri, Janpad Panchayat Kanood, Distt. Dewas which was held on 24-1-2010. The result was declared on 3-2-2010 and the petitioner was declared as elected. The certificate in Form 25 in terms of Rule 83 of the M. P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 was issued. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent No. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order dated 3-9-2010 allowing the election petition, setting aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch and declaring the respondent No. 2 as elected Sarpanch. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer has committed an error in allowing the election petition. He further submitted that no objection was taken by the respondent No. 2 in terms of Rule 84 before the District Election Officer in respect of any error in the calculation mistake in the result sheet, therefore, the election petition could not have been allowed on that ground. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner had not received the highest vote in the election but due to arithmetical error committed at the time of tabulation of vote she was declared elected. The Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, has rightly allowed the election petition after considering the evidence on record. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the election petition a ground was raised by the respondent No. 2 that in the polling booth No. 2 Muhada the respondent had received 257 votes and the petitioner had received only 6 votes but by mistake in the final tabulation 205 votes were taken into account in favour of the petitioner in respect of polling booth No. 2. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer had framed the issues in the election petition and permitted the parties to adduce evidence in this regard. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer had framed the issues in the election petition and permitted the parties to adduce evidence in this regard. After appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, the Sub Divisional Officer has reached to the conclusion that the votes received in polling booth No. 1 Kheri are not in dispute but in polling booth No. 2 Muhada the writ petitioner had received only 6 votes and not 205 votes, therefore, taking into account the correct votes which were recorded initially in form No. 17 the Sub Divisional Officer had found that arithmetical error was committed at the time of tabulation and the petitioner was wrongly declared as elected. 8. The original record has been produced before this Court. The Form No. 17 in respect of polling booth No. 2 (filed as Ex. P/3 in the election record) shows that 257 votes were polled in favour of the respondent No. 2 and only 6 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner. There was an apparent arithmetical error committed subsequently at the time of tabulation by which while adding the votes of booth No. 2 instead of 6 votes, 205 votes were added in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to bring any material on record to indicate that in fact 205 votes were polled in her favour in polling booth No. 2 and not the 6 votes only. Nothing has been pointed out to doubt the correctness of the finding which has been recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer in the impugned order. The record indicates that undisputedly the respondent No. 2 has received highest votes in the election petition, therefore, she has rightly been declared elected by the Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order. It is also clear from the record that undisputedly the respondent No. 2 has received highest votes in the election petition, therefore, she has rightly been declared elected by the Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order. 9. It is also clear from the record that undisputedly the respondent No. 2 has received highest votes in the election petition, therefore, she has rightly been declared elected by the Sub Divisional Officer by the impugned order. 9. So far as the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had not raised any objection before the District Election Officer in terms of Rule 84 is concerned, the non-raising of such an objection before the District Election Officer under Rule 84 will not come in the way of the respondent No. 2 in filing the election petition under section 122 of the M. P. Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Sampat Devi vs. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Niwadi and others, reported in 2007(3) JLJ 301 and in the matter of Ramavtar Budhouwa vs. Smt. Susheela Singh and others, reported in 2007(1) JLJ 54 wherein it has been held that in the democratic process, a person who gests highest votes has to be declared as a returned candidate. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 wherein it has been held that the High Court should refuse to exercise the extra ordinary discretionary power if such exercise of power results into restoration of an illegal order. 11. In view of the aforesaid no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.