ORDER : 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 30.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Tarikere, informing him that as the representation submitted by the petitioner for recounting the votes had been already considered by recounting the votes polled in the election held for Anuvanahalli Village Panchayat, Tarikere Taluk, there was no provision for further recount. 3. Indeed, petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.24656/2015. It was alleged by the petitioner that he was informed by the Election Officer that he had secured 270 votes while his rival Mr. Palaksha respondent No.2 herein had got 272 votes. Therefore, as the petitioner had lost by very narrow margin of two votes, he had requested the Returning Officer/Tahsildar, Tarikere, for recounting the votes by submitting a representation dated 10.06.2015, but, the said representation had not been considered. 4. In the light of this grievance made, this Court while disposing W.P.No.24656/2015 on 17.06.2015 issued a direction to the Returning Officer to consider the representation expeditiously, at any rate, on or before 30.06.2015. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the Tahsildar. 5. The Tahsildar has made it clear as per the endorsement issued that petitioner herein had indeed applied for recounting of votes on 05.06.2015 itself and as per his request, votes had been recounted and therefore, there was no provision for further recount in the light of the provisions contained under sub-rule (6) of Rule 71 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1993. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no such recount of votes by the Tahsildar and therefore, the impugned endorsement is illegal. 7. This contention of the petitioner cannot be entertained. The Tahsildar, who is the returning officer, has stated in the impugned endorsement in unmistakable terms that petitioner had indeed made a representation on 05.06.2015 itself seeking recount of the votes and the same had been acceded to and even after recount, it was found that respondent No.2-Palaksha had secured more votes and was, therefore, declared elected. It is also seen from the endorsement under challenge and the earlier order passed by this Court that Tahsildar, Tarikere, who was the Returning Officer for the election in question had not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petition filed in W.P. No. 24656/2015. It is also seen from the endorsement under challenge and the earlier order passed by this Court that Tahsildar, Tarikere, who was the Returning Officer for the election in question had not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petition filed in W.P. No. 24656/2015. Had he been made a party respondent in the said writ petition, he would have brought to the notice of this Court the recounting of votes that had been already done. 8. In terms of provisions contained in sub-rule (6) of Rule 71 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993, once total number of votes polled by each candidate had been announced as per sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (5), the Returning Officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 31 and no application for recount shall be entertained thereafter. Sub-rule (2) provides that a candidate or his agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer to recount the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which demand for recount is made. If such an application is made, as per sub-rule 3, the Returning Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or might reject it in toto, if it was a frivolous one. As per sub-rule (5), if the Returning Officer decides to allow the recount of the votes, then the recount of votes has to be done in accordance with the rules applicable and he is required to amend the result sheet in Form 31 to the extent necessary after such recount and announce the amendment so made by him. Once such total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced in terms of sub-rule (5), the returning officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 31 and no application for recount shall be entertained thereafter. 9. In the instant case, as the recount of votes had been already done. The returning officer had found no variance hence he had announced the result. Therefore, there is no provision under the Act and Rules for another recount. Indeed, such a process is prohibited. Hence, the present writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No.1 within three weeks from today.