CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) Could it have been directed by the order, dated 18.04.2014, passed in CWJC No. 13953 of 2013, arising out of an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the learned 2nd Munsif –cum- Election Tribunal, Vaishali, at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Election Tribunal”) shall proceed with the recounting of votes polled at the election, in question, and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law? 2. Our quest for an answer to the above question brings us to the following material facts, which have led to the present appeal:- (i) Pursuant to a notification, issued by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, election to the post of Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Daudnagar, was held, which was contested, amongst others, by the appellant, Smt. Sunita Devi, and respondent No. 10 herein, namely, Smt. Tara Jawi Daudi. The counting of votes took place on 25.02.2011. After counting of votes, respondent No.10, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, was announced to have received 1073 valid votes; whereas the present appellant was announced to have received 1074 valid votes. (ii) The respondent No. 10 herein, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, then, filed an application before the Returning Officer, Vaishali Block, Vaishali, seeking recounting of votes. However, recounting of the votes polled only at one booth was done and the Returning Officer declared the appellant herein as having been elected by a margin of just one vote. (iii) Following the declaration of the result of the said election, respondent No.10 herein, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, made an application to the Returning Officer seeking supply of certified copies of Form 20 Part (1) as well as Part (2) and also of Form 21. (iii) Following the declaration of the result of the said election, respondent No.10 herein, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, made an application to the Returning Officer seeking supply of certified copies of Form 20 Part (1) as well as Part (2) and also of Form 21. After more than two weeks, i.e., on 09.06.2011, respondent No.10 herein was informed by the Circle Officer, Vaishali, that since the result sheets had not been signed by the Returning Officer, the certified copies of the Forms, which had been sought for by respondent No.10 herein, could not be supplied to her, though Rule 81 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “2006 Rules”), according to respondent No. 10, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, requires the Returning Officer to prepare result sheets in Form 20 Part (1) as well as Part (2) and Form 21 and, then, declare the result, that is to say, that the declaration of the result, according to respondent No. 10, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, was impermissible until the result sheets, in prescribed forms, are filled up, as mentioned hereinbefore . (iv) The respondent No.10 herein, therefore, challenged the legality of the election of the appellant by making an election petition, which gave rise to Election Petition No. 14 of 2011/14 of 2013. The appellant contested the election petition and by its order, dated 27.06.2013, the learned Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition, which respondent No.10 herein had preferred. (v) Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Election Tribunal, respondent No.10 herein, filed, as a petitioner, a writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside and quashing the order, dated 27.06.2013, passed by the learned Election Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the election petition had been dismissed. By her writ petition, the appellant herein also sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Returning Officer to recount the votes, which had been polled in the election, in question, and, then, declare result anew in accordance with law. By her writ petition, the appellant herein also sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Returning Officer to recount the votes, which had been polled in the election, in question, and, then, declare result anew in accordance with law. (vi) By order, dated 18.04.2014, the writ petition has been allowed, the order, dated 27.06.2013, whereby the election petition had been dismissed, has, now, been set aside and quashed and the learned Election Tribunal has been directed to proceed with the recounting of valid votes polled at the election, in question, and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (vii) Aggrieved by the order, dated 18.04.2014, aforementioned, this appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 10. We have also heard Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission, Bihar. 4. While considering the present appeal, what is relevant to note is that there had been, admittedly, a direction issued by the State Election Commission, Bihar, that whenever there is a difference of less than 9 votes between the winning candidate and the one, who loses, at the election, there shall be recounting of votes polled in presence of candidates and, thereafter, the result shall be announced. Admittedly, when the margin of votes, by which the appellant herein had won the election, was just one, it was incumbent, on the part of the Returning Officer, to have recounted all the votes polled at the said election; but it was not done and the recounting was done in respect of votes polled at one booth only. 5. Coupled with the above, what has surfaced from the materials on record is that an application had, indeed, been made by the writ petitioner seeking, in terms of Rule 79 of 2006 Rules, recounting of validly polled votes; but this request, as already indicated above, had not been accepted by the Returning Officer. 6. It was contended before the learned Election Tribunal that no application seeking recounting of votes was made. However, the application has been proved on record as Exhibit-1. 6. It was contended before the learned Election Tribunal that no application seeking recounting of votes was made. However, the application has been proved on record as Exhibit-1. Undoubtedly, Rule 79 of 2006 Rules requires that a candidate or in his/her absence, his/her election agent, or counting agent, may make a written application to the Returning Officer or the Officer authorized by him/her for recounting of votes stating therein the grounds for the same and the Returning Officer or the Officer authorized by him/her may, fully or partially, accept or reject the application stating the reasons for the same and if the Returning Officer or the Officer authorized by him/her accepts fully or partially the application under sub-rule(2), he/she shall get the ballot-papers recounted and amend the result of the counting in the form prescribed in sub-Rule(2) of Rule 76 of 2006 Rules and declare the result. 7. The application, which the respondent No.10 had made seeking recounting of votes was, in substance, an application under Rule 79 of 2006 Rules. However, the said application was not allowed and no reason for not allowing recounting of votes was assigned; rather, it was further contended that no such application seeking for recounting of votes have been made by respondent No. 10 herein, namely, Tara Jawi Daudi, but this contention stands belied by Exhibit-1. 8. What is of paramount importance to, now, note is that Rule 81 of 2006 Rules, which relates to declaration of results, reads as follows:- “81. Declaration of results:- (1) After recording the particulars of the election result in Form-21, the Returning Officer or the Officer authorized shall declare that candidate elected as Member of Gram Panchayat/Panch of Gram Katchahry/Mukhiya/Sarpanch/Member of Panchayat Samiti/Member of Zila Parishad, as the case may be, who has secured the largest number of valid votes and shall certify it in the same Form. (2) One copy each duly signed of Form 21 shall be sent to the District Election Officer and through him/her to the Commission and the Director of Panchayat Raj.” 9. Close on the heels of Rule 81 of 2006 Rules, Rule 82 thereof states as under: “82. Election Certificate.— After the declaration of the election result, the Returning Officer shall grant a Election Certificate in Form -22 to the candidate so elected.” 10. Close on the heels of Rule 81 of 2006 Rules, Rule 82 thereof states as under: “82. Election Certificate.— After the declaration of the election result, the Returning Officer shall grant a Election Certificate in Form -22 to the candidate so elected.” 10. There is no dispute before us that the writ petitioner had made an application seeking to obtain certified copies of Form 20 Part (1) as well as Part (2) and also of Form 21, but the Circle Officer, Vaishali, on 09.06.2011, informed the writ petitioner-respondent No.10 herein that since the result sheets had not been signed by the Returning Officer, the certified copies of the forms, which had been sought for by the writ petitioner, could not be supplied to her. 11. In the face of the above information given to the writ petitioner by the Circle Officer, Vaishali, that the forms, in question, did not bear the signature of the Returning Officer, one wonders how the certificate could be issued to the appellant herein by the Returning Officer declaring the present appellant as the candidate, who had won the election, in question, though the condition precedent, for issuance of a certificate under Rule 82 of 2006 Rules, is compliance of Rule 81 thereof, which mandates that the particulars of the election result shall be recorded in Form 21 and whoever is found, in accordance with what is recorded in Form 21, to have received the largest number of valid votes, shall be certified as the winning candidate and that the copy of each duly signed Form 21 shall be sent to the District Election Officer and, through him, to the State Election Commission, Bihar, and the Director of the Panchayat Raj. 12. What is also noticeable, if we may reiterate, is that the learned Election Tribunal declined to direct recounting on the ground that no application, in terms of Rule 79 of 2006 Rules, had been made; whereas the application, in question, already stands proved on record as Exhibit-1. 13. Coupled with the above, and most importantly, the recounting, in the present case, had taken place only in respect of one booth; whereas the guidelines, issued by the State Election Commission, Bihar, coupled with the application made by the writ petitioner, required, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, recounting of all the votes polled. 14. 13. Coupled with the above, and most importantly, the recounting, in the present case, had taken place only in respect of one booth; whereas the guidelines, issued by the State Election Commission, Bihar, coupled with the application made by the writ petitioner, required, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, recounting of all the votes polled. 14. It is also equally important to note that the learned single Judge, while considering the writ petition, has taken note of the fact that the Returning Officer has deposed, in his cross-examination, that at booth No. 81, the total number of valid votes polled is shown to have been recorded as 345 and the number of invalid votes has been recorded as 13. Thus, the total votes polled, according to what is indicated hereinbefore, ought to be 358; whereas the total number of votes polled, at the said booth, was 361. This discrepancy has not been explained either by the present appellant or by the Returning Officer nor is there any explanation discernible, in this regard, from the materials on record. As the margin of victory between the loser and the winner in the said election was just one vote, it was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, entirely correct, on the part of the learned single Judge, to have set aside and quashed the order, dated 27.06.2013, whereby the learned Election Tribunal had dismissed the election petition. The learned single Judge was also wholly correct in directing the learned Election Tribunal to resort to recounting of all the votes polled and, based on the result of the recounting of the total number of votes polled, necessary order(s) shall be passed by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law. 15. Having examined the materials on record including the impugned order and having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned, we do not find any error, either factual or legal, in the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge and/or in the directions, which have been issued in the writ petition. 16. We find the present appeal wholly without merit. 17. In the result and for the reasons discussed, this appeal stands dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. Anjana Mishra, J. – I agree.