ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 12.7.2010 where by Sub-Divisional Officer/specified authority has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for recounting of votes. 2. Shri H.K. Shukla, Learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a singular contention. He submits that petitioner preferred an application before returning officer for recounting of the votes at the relevant time. The said application was not considered and rejected. On the strength of said application (Annexure P/3) dated 3.2.2010 it was prayed before the specified authority that a direction for recounting be issued. Shri Shukla submits that said authority has rejected the said prayer on the strength of returning officer’s letter dated 3.2.2010 (Annexure P/4) by holding that in the said letter, it is mentioned by authority that such application for recounting was not submitted by the petitioner. By taking this Court to Annexure P/4 dated 3.2.2010, letter which is relied upon by the specified authority in ultimate paragraph of rejection order, Shri Shukla submits that finding is perverse. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri R.P. Rathi and Shri Prashant Sharma. They submitted that order is in accordance with law and hence no interference is warranted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that specified authority has recorded contention of the petitioner and then recorded about filing of written submissions of both the parties. Conclusion is arrived at only on the basis of returning officer’s letter dated 3.2.2010. Operative portion which contains reason for rejection reads as under :- **izdj.k esa eSusa mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;kA x.kuk i=d dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA iqu% x.kuk dk vkosnu izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k bl ckr dh iqf”V fjVfuZx vkfQlj ds i= Øekad D;w@ia@fu@2010@497 fnukad 3-2-2010 ls gksrh gSA bl dkj.k fjVfuZx vkQhlj iapk;r fHk.M ds xzke iapk;r }kjk [kqnZ ds fy, iqu% erx.kuk dk vkosnu vkSfpR; iw.kZ u gksus ds dkj.k vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k vad ls de gksdj nkf[ky fjdkMZ gksA** 6. A plain reading of this order shows that singular reason for rejecting petitioner’s prayer for recounting was that as per specified authority, petitioner did not submit any application for recounting before the returning officer. A plain reading of this order shows that singular reason for rejecting petitioner’s prayer for recounting was that as per specified authority, petitioner did not submit any application for recounting before the returning officer. If this finding is tested on the basis of returning officer’s letter dated 3.2.2010 (Annexure P/4), it will be crystal clear that such application was very much filed by the petitioner. Thus, the singular reason assigned by specified authority is perverse and specified authority has not considered the merits of the petitioner’s application on the ground that such application was never preferred before the returning Officer. Since it is factually incorrect, whole order founded upon the said singular reason cannot be permitted to stand. The order is bad in law for yet another reason. The specified authority while dealing with the request of election petitioner for recount could not have rejected the entire election petition. In other words, even if the prayer for recount was impermissible, at best that prayer could have been declined. Specified authority was then required to decide the election petition on merits. Admittedly, he did not conduct the complete trial of election petition and dismissed it on the basis of prayer of recount. The said procedure adopted by specified authority is totally unknown to law. Resultantly, the order dated 12.7.2010 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the specified authority. I am not oblivious of the fact that term of the elected candidate will be over in January, 2015 and therefore, it is necessary for specified authority to decide the election petition expeditiously. 7. Resultantly, specified authority is directed to decide the election petition filed under section 122 of the Act expeditiously. He shall hear the matter on day-to-day basis and shall positively decide the matter on or before 31st December, 2014. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Parties shall appear before the specified authority on 1st December, 2014. AG Office is directed to sent the original record back to the specified authority forthwith. AG office shall communicate this order to the specified authority. H. K. Shukla for petitioner; R. P. Rathi, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3/State; Prashant Sharma for respondent No.7.