Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner Ram Prakash Lal has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Election Tribunal of Hazaribagh, dated the 13th November, 1962, in Election Petition No. 353 of 1962, directing Production of the ballot papers and inspection of the same, should not be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No. 1 to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 3. The main argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Election Tribunal is erroneous in law because it is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the power vested in the Tribunal. It was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to call for the ballot papers from the proper authorities and allow an inspection of the same by the parties concerned. This position is not controverted by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in view of the powers vested in the Election Tribunal under Section 92 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides as follows : "92. Powers of the Tribunal. -- The Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters :- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of documents; (d) examining witnesses on oath; (e) granting adjournments; (f) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (g) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material; and shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898). X X X X X" But the argument stressed on behalf of the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the present case the Election Tribunal acted arbitrarily and capriciously in exercising its powers in calling for the ballot papers and allowing inspection of the same. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as correct. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as correct. In paragraph g of the election petition the petitioner alleged that "at the time of counting of votes, the rule regarding Single Transferable Vote was not observed which resulted in not counting of votes in favour of the petitioner which he obtained and as such the respondent No. 1 was wrongly elected and had the rule been correctly followed and ob-served the petitioner would have been elected." In reply to this allegation it was stated by the respondent No. 1 in paragraph 16 of his written statement that "the petitioner was present throughout the counting of votes and did not raise any objection to the method of counting, nor did he ask for any recounting of votes and the petitioner is estopped from raising a plea now that the rule regarding Single Transferable Vote was not observed ......" In view of these pleadings the Election Tribunal framed issue No. 3 which is to the following effect: - "Was the rule regarding Single Transferable Vote not observed at the time of the counting of votes and did it in any way affect the result (sic) from raising this issue at all?" In the context of the pleadings in this case and the issue framed by the Election Tribunal we are of opinion that the order of the Election Tribunal calling for the ballot papers and allowing inspection of the same is not arbitrary or capricious and not vitiated by any illegality. We accordingly reject the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this point. 4. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Election Tribunal is erroneous in law because there is violation of Sec.128 of the Representation of the People Act, which provides for the maintenance of secrecy of voting, and also Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules which provides for the production and inspection of election papers. We do not think there is any substance in the point raised by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 93 reads as follows: - "93. Production and inspection of election papers. We do not think there is any substance in the point raised by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Rule 93 reads as follows: - "93. Production and inspection of election papers. - (1) While in the custody of the returning officer - (a) the packets of unused ballot papers; (b) the packets of used ballot paperswhether valid, tendered or rejected; (c) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained under Sub-section (1) of Sub-section (2) of Section 152; and (d) the packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signaturse; shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court or Tribunal. (2) All other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection subject to such conditions and to the payment of such fee, if any, as the Election Commission may direct, (3) Copies of the returns by the returning officer forwarded under Rule 64 or as the case may be, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 84 shall be furnished by the chief electoral officer at the State concerned on payment of a fee of two rupees for each such copy." It is manifest that this rule does not refer to the conduct of proceedings before the Election Tribunal. On the contrary the rule expressly pre-serves the power of the Tribunal to call for and inspect the ballot papers. Sec.128 of the Act also has no reference to power of the Election Tribunal in the hearing of election petition and the Section has no bearing on the question which is presented for determination in this case. 5 For these reasons we hold that the petitioner has made out no case for interference with the order of the Election Tribunal of Hazaribagh, dated the 13th November, 1962. We accordingly dismiss this application with costs to respondent No. 1. Hearing fee Rs. 250/-.