JUDGMENT: Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the notice, Annexure P-1, whereby the date of re-poll in Polling Station No.25, Anghora, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District Morena is intimated as 28th February, 2015 and recounting on 1st March, 2015. 3. Assailing this order, it is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners have secured more votes than complainant Smt. Neeta Rawat. It is contended that the margin of victory of petitioners was so high that question of recounting does not arise. It is contended that the complainant is cousin daughter-in-law of sitting MLA of ruling party and, therefore, re-polling and recount is directed by the Returning Officer. It is further submitted that the Returning Officer has no authority, competence and jurisdiction to direct re-poll in view of rule 72 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for brevity, "Niyam"). It is submitted that it is only the Election Commission, which can direct re-poll. Lastly, it is submitted that after polling and counting of the votes re-polling is impermissible. 4. Ms. Ami Prabal, after obtaining instructions, submits that the re-poll and recounting is not ordered by the Returning Officer. It is ordered by Election Commission after following due process and Niyam of 1995. It is submitted that the said order of Election Commission was issued on 26th February, 2015. It is further submitted that in view of rule 72 of Niyam, the Election Commission is empowered to direct re-poll. Lastly, she submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy to assail the re-poll and recount in an election petition in the event they lose in the election. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the instructions of learned counsel for the respondents, re-poll is ordered by the Competent Authority, i.e., Election Commission. Thus, merely because consequential notice is issued by Returning Officer, re-poll cannot be set aside. Rule 72(1)(b) of Niyam makes it clear that in the event of any error or irregularity in procedure which vitiates the poll at a particular polling station, the re- poll can be ordered. 7. During the course of argument, Ms. Ami Prabal apprised the Court that total number of voters in Polling Station No.25 are 529, out of which 483 came to cast their votes. 7. During the course of argument, Ms. Ami Prabal apprised the Court that total number of voters in Polling Station No.25 are 529, out of which 483 came to cast their votes. However, total votes found in the EVM were 541. She submitted that aforesaid facts make it clear that number of votes cast are much more than the total number of voters available. Thus, in order to secure the purity, transparency and fairness in the poll, the re-poll was directed. In my view, Rule 72(1)(b) permits the Election Commission to direct re- poll. The basic purpose to direct re-poll is to ensure purity in election and this power can be exercised even if counting had taken place in the earlier poll. In the peculiar facts of this case, the number of votes cast in the concerned polling station are much more than the number of actual voters. This discrepancy can be seen only when counting had taken place. I am unable to hold that after counting re-poll cannot be directed. 8. Apart from this, at this stage when re-poll is scheduled tomorrow, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition. Rule 21 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, makes it clear that non-compliance of provisions of the Act or Rules can be a ground to challenge and seek declaration of election to be void. The petitioners if aggrieved by re-poll and recounting have a statutory remedy under Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam and the aforesaid Rules. 9. In view of the availability of the remedy and in view of statement of Ms. Ami Prabal that re-poll and recount is ordered by Election Commission, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition. The writ petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy under the Act and Rules, if required. 10. It is made clear that no finding in this order will come in the way of petitioners in the event they file election petition. The Election Tribunal will decide the matter on its own merits. 11. Petition stands disposed of.