Recounting of votes needs specific pleadings and prima facie proof of irregularities; prior recount application is relevant but not mandatory.

Recounting of votes in election matters is an exceptional remedy that requires specific pleadings, material facts disclosing counting irregularities, and a strong prima facie foundation showing a likely impact on the result. Vague allegations, a narrow margin alone, or a roving inquiry are insufficient, and the tribunal must record clear reasons before ordering recount. Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 was held directory, so a prior application to the returning officer is not an absolute condition for recounting. However, failure to prove such an application, or to explain its absence, remains a relevant factor in assessing the request.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an election tribunal could direct recounting of votes on the basis of the pleadings and evidence placed before it; (ii) Whether Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 required a prior application before the returning officer as a condition for recounting.

Issue (i): Whether an election tribunal could direct recounting of votes on the basis of the pleadings and evidence placed before it.

Analysis: A direction for recounting can be issued only where the election petitioner lays a proper foundation in the pleadings, shows material facts disclosing irregularities in counting, and establishes a prima facie case. The secrecy of the ballot must be protected, and recounting cannot be ordered on vague or general allegations, on a narrow margin alone, or on a roving and fishing inquiry. The tribunal must record clear reasons showing how the alleged irregularities are of such magnitude as to have materially affected the result. The pleadings in the election petition were found to be vague, and the order of recounting did not analyse the evidence or identify the material facts that justified such an extreme step.

Conclusion: The tribunal was not justified in directing recounting, and its order could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 required a prior application before the returning officer as a condition for recounting.

Analysis: Rule 79 was held to be directory rather than mandatory. A prior application to the returning officer is not an absolute bar to recounting in election proceedings, but the availability and non-availment of that statutory remedy is a relevant factor while deciding whether recounting should be ordered. The rule serves the purpose of immediate redressal and assists the election tribunal in assessing the genuineness and basis of the request for recounting. In the present case, the failure to prove that such an application had been made or refused, coupled with the absence of sufficient explanation and supporting material, counted against the election petitioner.

Conclusion: A prior application under Rule 79 was not mandatory, but the absence of a proved application supported rejection of the request for recounting on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirmed that recounting in election matters is an exceptional remedy that depends on specific pleadings, proven irregularities, and a strong prima facie foundation, and that procedural compliance with the recount mechanism remains an important factor in the overall assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Recounting of votes may be ordered only on a pleaded and proved prima facie case showing material irregularities likely to affect the result, and a statutory recount application, though not always mandatory, remains a significant factor in assessing whether that threshold is met.

---