ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) A direction of calling the entire records be issued by this Hon’ble Court. (b) Allow the petition by issuing the writ of certiorary quashing the impugned orders passed by respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the consequences that followed the order of Sub Division Officer (Revenue), District Mungeli who in the capacity of Election Tribunal had ordered for recounting of votes for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Semarkona, Block and District Mungali. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the election was held on 28.01.2020. When the counting was done at the first instance, the petitioner was declared as the elected Sarpanch. The margin between petitioner and respondent no.4 was only one. Respondent no.4 thereafter filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal which was registered as Case No. 02/A-89(21)/2019-2020. The Election Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2021 ordered for recounting of votes taking into consideration the evidences which have come on record and that the margin between the two candidates being only one. 4. The order of recounting was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before this Court vide WPC No. 5548/2021. However, before the said writ petition could be taken up for hearing, the order of the Election Tribunal for recounting had already been done on 31.12.2021. Thus, the said writ petition got rendered infructuous and the present writ petition has subsequently been filed challenging the order of recounting and subsequently the declaration of the results of recounting by the respondents. 5. The challenge in the present writ petition is also on the ground that the order of recounting at the first instance is bad and the results so published thereafter also is equally not sustainable. According to the petitioner, there is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule-11 of the CG Panchayat Nirvachan Rules, 1995. It is the contention of petitioner that the authority concerned has reached to the conclusion of recounting of votes only on the basis of vague evidences that have been led by the election petitioner without there being any strong evidence particularly that of the officers who had been entrusted the job of counting of votes. It is the contention of petitioner that the authority concerned has reached to the conclusion of recounting of votes only on the basis of vague evidences that have been led by the election petitioner without there being any strong evidence particularly that of the officers who had been entrusted the job of counting of votes. It is also the contention of petitioner that they were also a necessary party and they should have been brought before the Tribunal to lead evidence to prove the contention of the election petition. Further contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of any statement made by the officers who were counting the votes in respect of there being insufficient light, the finding arrived at by the election Tribunal is bad. The election petitioner at no point of time had made a request in writing to the authority for recounting of votes which is also required under the statute. 6. On the contrary, the perusal of the order of the Election Tribunal dated 20.12.2021 what is reflected is that in the election petition many witnesses were examined and in the course of cross-examination of the witnesses it has been admitted that there was frequent disruption in the electricity and that there was no proper sufficient light. In addition, there was also large crowd assembled at the place where the counting was being done and the shadow of the crowd also reduced the light of the place. 7. Another fact which is reflected from the order of the election Tribunal is that subsequent to the order being passed on 20.12.2021 notices were also issued to the petitioner to remain present for recounting of votes (though according to the petitioner notice was issued contrary to the rules). Further what is admittedly reflected from the proceedings is that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner herein and the petitioner was also very much present at the time of recounting of votes. The entire recounting of votes has been done in the presence of the petitioner himself and the results of which have subsequently been declared on 31.12.2021 wherein the respondent no.4 has been declared the winner with a margin of 3 votes and that the certificate has also been issued to respondent no.4 declaring her to be the elected candidate. 8. The entire recounting of votes has been done in the presence of the petitioner himself and the results of which have subsequently been declared on 31.12.2021 wherein the respondent no.4 has been declared the winner with a margin of 3 votes and that the certificate has also been issued to respondent no.4 declaring her to be the elected candidate. 8. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, once when it is reflected that the entire election petition has been decided on the basis of the evidences which have come on record more particularly on the basis of the findings from the cross-examination of the witnesses examined, the finding of the Election Tribunal cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or bad in law. The impugned action also does not warrant any interference for the reason that the recounting of votes has been done in the presence of the petitioner who was very much available at the place where recounting was being done. As such there cannot be any malafide attributed upon the respondents in declaration of the results on the recounting of votes. 9. Thus, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.