MEHROTRA, C. J. AND C. S. NAYUDU, J.: This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant contested as a candidate for the Jorhat Parliamen­tary Constituency in the State of Assam in the elections held in February, 1962. Shri Rajendra Nath Barua, respondent No. 1 was also a contesting candidate. Another candidate was Shrl Hemchandra Saha, arrayed as respondent No. 2 to this ap­peal. The appellant stood on the Congress ticket wliile respondent No. 1 was a P.S.P. candidate and the second respondent was an independent candi­date. The Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency com­prises of 9 Assembly Constituencies, 5 in Jorhat Sub­division and 4 in Golaghat Sub-division. Polling took place in the said constituency on the 19th February 1962 and 24th February 1962. The coun­ting of votes was done simultaneously at Jorhat and Golaghat on the 25th and 26th February, 1962. On the 27th February, 1962 the results were declar­ed and Shri Rajendra Nath Barua respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected. The total number of elector^ In this constituency was 4,04,220, the votes polled were 1,96,268 and 10,653 votes were declared invalid. Shri Rajendra Nath Barua got 78,091 votes, while the appellant got 77,184 votes and respondent No. 2 got 30,340 votes. The appellant filed a peti­tion challenging the election of the respondent. The reliefs claimed were as follows: (a) The Election petition may be referred to an Election Tribunal. (b) That the election of the 1st Respondent be declared void and set aside. (c) That a recounting of the votes polled in Jorhat Sub-division, (Jorhat Parliamentary Consti­tuency) in the election held in February, 1962 be ordered. (d) If on recount it is found that the petitioner-appellant has received a larger number of votes then the petitioner should be declared to have been duly elected. (2) A one-man Election Tribunal was con­stituted with the District Judge, Jorhat as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the petition was sent to him for disposal. By his order dated the 29th December, 1962 the Tribunal rejected the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs to respon­dent No. 1. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. By his order dated the 29th December, 1962 the Tribunal rejected the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs to respon­dent No. 1. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner appellant to Inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-Division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency and held that the appellant has failed to prove that the result of the election was materially affected by wrongful re­jection of the votes polled in her favour and errors committed at the time of the counting. (3) The election petition was filed on the 9th April, 1962. In paragraph 3 of the petition the peti­tioner appellant states that the candidates were given to understand by a written communication issued by the Returning Officer, Jorhat that the counting of votes will take place in two Halls, Nos. 1 and 2 of the District Library, Jorhat. Ac­cordingly the petitioner appointed her counting Agents In batches for the two Halls and also ap­pointed four more counting agents for emergency. In paragraph 4 she states that she personally sup­ervised the counting at Golaghat and she entrusted the supervision of the counting at Jorhat to her agents. On her return from Golaghat on 27-2-1&62, she understood from her agents at Jorhat that the Returning Officer at Jorhat had made last minute changes in the counting Hall which resulted in serious difficulties and anomalies and that the Re­turning Officer approved only 8 counting-agents of the petitioner appellant out of 20 named by her and dismissed the rest. She further understood that the counting went on simultaneously on 34 tables in one Hall, with the result that it was hum­anly impossible for her agents to watch the count­ing effectively. Moreover, four out of eight of her agents observed Ramzan fasting and hence 4 agents of the petitioner alone had to watch the counting on 34 tables which was going on simultaneously. Her request to allow a few relievers to relieve those who observed fasting was rejected by the Returning Officer without adequate or proper rea­sons. In paragraph 5 she states that in the counting of votes in a Parliamentary Constituency, where lakhs of votes are involved, accuracy could not be possibly achieved unless there was a proper check at the time of counting. Counting was going on simultaneously on 34 tables. In paragraph 5 she states that in the counting of votes in a Parliamentary Constituency, where lakhs of votes are involved, accuracy could not be possibly achieved unless there was a proper check at the time of counting. Counting was going on simultaneously on 34 tables. Ballot papers marked with petitioner's symbol were misplaced >in the pigeon hole meant for rival candidate and it was physically Impossible for her agents to know and note the particulars of such Improperly accepted votes. As many as 10,653 votes were rejected as Improper. The petitioner will be in a position to furnish full details of the aforesaid votes only after Inspection and she prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant her such permission. The difference in the votes polled as announced between the petitioner and the P.S.P. candidate Is very narrow and the petitioner has reasons to believe that if a recount is ordered and if the improperly accepted votes are excluded and improperly reject­ed votes are Included respondent No. 1 will be found to have polled less as compared to her. Thus It Is submitted that the result of election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance and rejection of votes by the persons concerned and the hasty ana unchecked counting. In paragraph 6 it is set out that the illegal and improper manner of counting of the votes was repeatedly brought to the notice of the Returning Officer but all of them proved of no avail. In this paragraph it is then stated that she on 27-2-1302 at 9-30 a.m. addressed a letter to the Returning Officer, Jorhat requesting him to postpone the announcement of the result of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency as the figures taken by the counting-agents of the petitioner did not tally with the official figures. She persistently requested the Returning Officer to have the recount of votes and sent an express telegram to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, Shillong on 27-2-1962 pro­testing against the illegal and improper methods adopted in counting the votes and demanding a recounting. In paragraph 7 it is stated that she has good reasons to believe that a large number of votes have been improperly received and accept­ed by the Returning Officer which has affected the result of the election materially. In paragraph 7 it is stated that she has good reasons to believe that a large number of votes have been improperly received and accept­ed by the Returning Officer which has affected the result of the election materially. Further, on ac­count of haste there was no check of 50 ballot paper bundles and the Returning Officer also did not make any test check. In paragraph 9 it is stated as follows: "It is therefore submitted that the counting of votes at Jorhat by the Returning Officer, Jorhat .Parliamentary Constituency, Jorhat was not only Irregular but also illegal and the figures as declared by the said officer are not the correct figures. The procedure adopted in counting the votes resulted in improper acceptance of votes by the Returning Officer and hence the provisions laid down in S. 100 of the Representation of the People Act and Rules framed thereunder are contravened. (4) On the 11th June 1962 the respondent No. 2 Hem Chandra Sana filed his written statement. In paragraph 2 of the written statement it is stated that sorting and counting of votes, as was learnt, went on simultaneously both at Golaghat and Jorhat both situated at the distance of 30 miles from each other and hence it was physically impossible for a candidate to make personal supervision of sorting the counting of votes as well as proper rejection or acceptance of votes of doubtful marking. In paragraph 4 It is stated that the respondent No. 2 had the chance of supervising, sorting and counting of votes only for a few hours on the last day of counting at Jorhat and he strongly felt that sorting and counting of votes was going on very hastily at 84 tables and it continued till midnight thereby exhausting energy and efficiency of all concerned and as such it was quite impossible to check if there was even any unintentional misplacing of properly marked votes In the packets of other rival candi­dates or the rejection or acceptance of votes of doubtful marking was done after observing the laid down procedure. In paragraph 5 he says that the large number of votes rejected in this Parliamen­tary Constituency amounted to 10,653 and It was not known whether all these rejected votes were duly checked by the Returning Officer to ensure justice to both the candidates and the voters or the Presiding Officers and his assistants failed In their duties to give proper instructions to voters as regards marking these ballot papers meant for this Parliamentary Constituency. In paragraph 6 he supports the demand for the recounting of the votes in the Parliamentary constituency. (5) The contesting respondent No. 1 Rajendra. Nath Barua filed a written statement on the 21st June, 1SB2. in paragraph 4 of the written state­ment it is stated that the counting of votes pro­ceeded correctly according to the prescribed rules and: procedure. The Returning Officer gave all facilities to the petitioner and her alleged request if any to substitute her relatives in place of her agents, must be one against the rules and law. In para­graph 5 he stated that with reference to allegation made in paragraph 5 of the petition the petitioner has not given any specified instance of any irregular or wrong counting. Her allegations are mere sus­picion. The petitioner's allegation of misplacing ballot papers is false. She has not given any specific instance on any annexure in support of the allega­tion. Such sweeping allegations are not maintain­able in law. The petitioner or her agents never brought any such irregularity to the notice of the Returning Officer. In paragraph 6 it is stated that it is neither legal nor permissible to allow the petitioner to inspect the ballot papers and then find out the details for making out a case. The respondent submits that the Tribunal has no juris­diction to accede to such an improper request as made in the petition. In paragraph 8 it is stated that it is not permissible in an election petition to allege improper rejection or acceptance of votes without giving particulars thereof. In fact there was no Improper acceptance or rejection of votes. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the allegation made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition are. Imaginary, suspicious having no basis whatsoever. Besides this the respondent in paragraph 12 sets out certain grounds as to the non-maintainability of the petition. On the 20th July, 1962 the follow­ing issues were framed: 1. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the allegation made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition are. Imaginary, suspicious having no basis whatsoever. Besides this the respondent in paragraph 12 sets out certain grounds as to the non-maintainability of the petition. On the 20th July, 1962 the follow­ing issues were framed: 1. Whether the petition can lie merely for re­counting of votes? 2. Whether the petition is tenable in law and whether there can be order for recounting the votes? 3. Whether the petition is properly verified and drawn up according to law? 4. Whether there are valid grounds for setting aside the election? 5. Whether there was any non-compliance of the Rules regarding counting of votes and whether any votes were Improperly accepted op rejected which materially affected the result of the election as alleged in the petition? 6. What relief, if any, are the parties entitled to? (6) On the 6th August 1962 after the framing-of the Issues the appellant made an application to the Tribunal. In the application it was stated that for the decision of the Issue No. 5 the voting papers should be called for and scrutinised to find out the number of the Improperly accepted and rejected votes. It was prayed in this application that before entering into any evidence the Tribunal may be pleased to direct the production of all the Ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency for scrutinising the Ballot papers by the Tribunal. An objection was filed by respondent No. 1 to this petition. On the 23rd August 1902 the Tribunal passed an order after hearing the arguments of the parties on this application. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had alleged that the result of the election has been materially affected by the Improper acceptance and rejection of votes, and that 10,653 votes were alleged to have been rejected as Improper. Even before the application was made on the 6th August 1902, the petitioner in para­graph 5 of the petition had already stated that the petitioner will be in a position to furnish full details of the aforesaid votes only after inspection, and she prayed for such permission as it was not possible to specify the votes wrongfully accepted or rejected. Even before the application was made on the 6th August 1902, the petitioner in para­graph 5 of the petition had already stated that the petitioner will be in a position to furnish full details of the aforesaid votes only after inspection, and she prayed for such permission as it was not possible to specify the votes wrongfully accepted or rejected. The Tribunal relying upon section 92 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1061 (hereinafter called 'the Act' and 'the Rules' res­pectively) held that the Tribunal had power to order for production and inspection of used bal­lot papers. The Tribunal further was of opinion that unless the petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect as provided under Rule 93 of the Rules It was not possible for the petitioner to specify how .many void votes were counted for the respondent who was declared elected and how many of her votes were improperly rejected, and for this rea­son in his opinion the inspection of the ballot papers was essentially necessary and it will be expedient in the interest of justice to allow an ins­pection of the used ballot papers kept in the cus­tody of the returning officer, Jorhat, at that stage. He directed that if the petitioner can specify as to how many ballot papers were wrongly rejected and accepted, the question of scrutinising the bal­lot papers may then be taken up. The concluding portion of the order reads as follows: "I, accordingly directed that the Returning Officer, Jorhat, will allow the petitioner, her agents and her counsel to inspect the used ballot -papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency in presence of the respondents if they so desire. The inspection should be allowed during the work­ing hours on and from 3-9-62 and finished within 8-8-62. The wrongly accepted and rejected ballot papers as the case may be, as pointed out by the petitioner, should be kept in separate sealed covers bearing the seals and signatures of the Returning Officer, the petitioner and the respondents. The returning officer is also directed to show the ballot paper accounts to the petitioner. The wrongly accepted and rejected ballot papers as the case may be, as pointed out by the petitioner, should be kept in separate sealed covers bearing the seals and signatures of the Returning Officer, the petitioner and the respondents. The returning officer is also directed to show the ballot paper accounts to the petitioner. The .Returning Officer will keep the1 packets in his custody and keep an account of the ballot papers as they stand after the inspection and these shall have to be produced before the Tri­bunal when called upon." On the 1st September 1962 the respondent's peti­tion praying for the stay of the operation of the order directing inspection of the ballot was put up before the Tribunal and was rejected. But the respondent was directed to obtain stay order from this court. The respondent then moved this court against the order of the Tribunal allowing the application of the petitioner for the inspection of the ballot papers. This revision was summarily rejected by this court on the 5th September, 1902. Thereafter on the 10th September 1962 the matter was put up before the Tribunal again. The Tribunal extended the time for com­pletion of the inspection by the 27th Sep­tember, 1902. On the 29th September 19621 the Tribunal passed an order on a petition filed by the petitioner for extension of time for the ins­pection of the ballot papers. The Tribunal direc­ted that as all the ballot papers could not be ins­pected within tile time fixed and the returning officer also reports that the inspection of the bal­lot papers of seven more constituencies is still to be made, further time is allowed for inspection from 17th October 1062 onwards and the returning officer had to submit his report by the 30th Octo­ber, 1002. On the 30th October 1962 the returning officer submitted a report in which he stated that the inspection of used ballot papers in respect of Titabar, Majuli and Teok Constituencies and 24 polling centres of Morongi Constituency was completed by the 29th October 1962. Three more constituencies and 21 centres of one constituency are yet to be done. The inspected ballot papers have been kept in the double lock of the Treasury. The Returning Officer thus in his report stated that the inspection could not be completed within the time allowed by the court. Three more constituencies and 21 centres of one constituency are yet to be done. The inspected ballot papers have been kept in the double lock of the Treasury. The Returning Officer thus in his report stated that the inspection could not be completed within the time allowed by the court. On the 29th October 3062 the respondent made the following applica­tion: "The petitioner had obtained an order for ins­pection of tile used ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency and accordingly she completed her inspection on the 26th October 1962. The petitioner is now claiming before the return­ing officer a right to have inspection of the wised ballot papers of the Golaghat Subdivision as well. The case of the petitioner in her election petition is that the counting of votes at Jorhat by the Returning Officer, Jorhat Parliamentary Consti­tuency, Jorhat, was not only irregular but also illegal and the figures as declared by the said offi­cer, are not correct and she prays therein for a recount of the votes polled in Jorhat Sub-division (Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency). The order elated the 23rd August 1962 was clearly for inspec­tion of the votes polled in the Jorhat Subdivision and the petitioner cannot claim any right there under, to have the used ballots of the Golaghat sub­division to be inspected by her, when her sole ob­jection is against the counting of votes of the Jorhat Sub-division. It is prayed by means of this appli­cation that the order dated 23rd August, 1962 should be clarified and necessary instructions Issued to the Returning Officer not to allow inspection of the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division." (7) By the order dated the 2nd November, 1962 the Tribunal directed that the inspection should be confined to the ballot papers of Jorhat Sub-divi­sion of Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency counted at Jorhat. This order was passed by way of clari­fication of the previous order dated 23rd August, 1962. The Tribunal was of opinion that as from the petition filed by the appellant it will be clear that her objection was against the counting of votes in Jorhat only, the order of the 23rd August 1962 must be Interpreted as confined to the inspec­tion of the ballot papers in Jorhat Sub-division and the order cannot be construed to include the ins­pection of the ballot papers of Golaghat Sub-divi­sion counted at Golaghat. According to the Tribunal there is no need of inspecting the papers of the Golaghat Sub-division and his earlier order was only meant for inspection of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division. The appellant could not, thus inspect the used ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency. Thereafter the appellant applied for amendment of the petition by which she sought to incorporate a specific prayer for the inspection of the ballot papers of the Golaghat Subdivision. This petition for amendment was rejected by the Tribunal by his order dated the 6th December, 1962. The Tribunal held that if the permission was gran­ted to the appellant at that stage, it would be violating' the provisions of section 81 of the Act and the amendment will change the nature of the peti­tion. After the evidence was led by the parties, the Tribunal scrutinised the ballot papers of Jorhat Suit-division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Consti­tuency which were inspected by the appellant and held that the result of the inspection shows that 608 votes are alleged to have been improperly counted in favour of the respondent No. 1 and 144 votes of the appellant were improperly rejected. On this showing the Tribunal held that if all the 608 votes which are alleged to have been improperly counted in favour of respondent No. 1 were deduc­ted from his total number and all the 144 votes, of the appellant which are alleged to have been Improperly rejected are added to her votes, still the respondent would be getting 155 more votes than the appellant and this in any view of the matter the results of the election were not materially affected. On this finding he dismissed the election petition. (8) The main ground taken in appeal is that the Tribunal was not right in refusing permission to the appellant to inspect the used ballot papers of the Golaghat Subdivision of the Jorhat Parlia­mentary Constituency. The Tribunal has not cor­rectly interpreted its earlier order of the 23rd August, 1962 by his subsequent order of the 2nd November 1962. In the first order the Tribunal had granted permission to the appellant to inspect the ballot papers of the entire Jorhat Constituency end not only of the Jorhat Subdivision. The Tribunal has not cor­rectly interpreted its earlier order of the 23rd August, 1962 by his subsequent order of the 2nd November 1962. In the first order the Tribunal had granted permission to the appellant to inspect the ballot papers of the entire Jorhat Constituency end not only of the Jorhat Subdivision. It is fur­ther urged that the Tribunal having exercised its discretion with due regard to the circumstances of the case properly in allowing the appellant to ins­pect the used ballot papers of the entire Jorhat Constituency, had no valid reasons to limit the scope of its earlier order and confine it to the ins­pection of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Subdivi­sion of the Jorhat Constituency. There was no justifiable reason to artificially limit the right of the appellant to inspect the ballot papers of the Jorhat Subdivision of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency only when the Golagfcat Sub-division also is a part of the Jorhat Parliamentary Consti­tuency. It is further urged that the Tribunal wag not right in holding that the petition was confined to the recounting of the votes of the Jorhat Sub­division. It is true that the petitioner appellant had stated in the petition that numerous irregulari­ties were committed in counting at Jorhat, but the allegation was that in the entire constituency more than 10,000 votes were rejected. The allegation thus was that the appellant was entitled to a declaration in her favour as the results of the election have been materially affected by improper rejection of the ballot papers and this allegation was in res­pect of the entire constituency in which more than 10,000 votes were rejected as invalid and was not-confined to the Jorhat Subdivision of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency. (9) The respondent has tried to support the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the allegations in the petition were very vague and the petition was not in conformity with the provisions-of section 83 of the Act. It is further urged that in view of the allegations in the petition the Tri­bunal was not justified in permitting the appellant to inspect the ballot paper a even of the Jorhat Sub-­division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency. It is further urged that in view of the allegations in the petition the Tri­bunal was not justified in permitting the appellant to inspect the ballot paper a even of the Jorhat Sub-­division of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency. It is further contended that the Tribunal was right in interpreting its earlier order and that on the materials the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that the results were materially affected by the wrongful acceptance or rejection of the ballet' papers. (10) It will be convenient to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Section 81 of the Act provided that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (.1) of section-100 and Sec. 101 to the Election Commission by any candidate at such election or any elector. Sec­tion 82 deals with the parties to petition. Section 83 reads as follows: - "83. (1) An election petition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, includ­ing as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and veri­fied in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification, ol pleadings. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner". (11) Section 90 lays down the procedure be­fore the Tribunal, relevant provisions whereof provide : "90 (1). Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Tribunal, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits. Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Tribunal, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits. (3) The Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81, section 82 or section 117 notwith­standing that it has not been dismissed by the Election Commission under section 85." (12) Under section 92 the Tribunal has the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. Section 100 sets out the grounds for declaring elec­tion to be void and sub-section (1) (d) (iii) and (iv) of section 100 which is relevant, is as follows:- "100. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub­section (2), if the Tribunal is of opinion- (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been mate­rially affected, » * * (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which Is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provi­sions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any -rules or orders made under this Act, the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (13) Section 101 sets out the grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candi­date may be declared to have been elected. - This can be done if it is found that the petitioner or such other candidate received the majority of valid votes. (14) 1'rom the reading of section 100 it is clear that the improper reception, refusal or rejec­tion of any vote is a ground for setting aside an election. - This can be done if it is found that the petitioner or such other candidate received the majority of valid votes. (14) 1'rom the reading of section 100 it is clear that the improper reception, refusal or rejec­tion of any vote is a ground for setting aside an election. It is also clear from section 83 that the considerations which apply to the allegations of corrupt practice as contemplated by section 83 (1) (b) would not be relevant in the case of other allegations which will be covered by section 83 (I) (a) (15) In paragraph 4 of. the petition the irregu­larities committed in counting at Jorhat are set out and thereafter in paragraph 5 a general state­ment is made that in counting of votes in the Parliamentary Constituency where lakhs of votes .are involved unless the checking is done at the proper time, there is likely to be a mistake. Thereafter specific allegation is made that ballot papers marked with the petitioner's symbol were misplaced in the pigeon hole meant for the rival candidate and as many as 10,653 votes were rejec­ted as improper. It is further stated in this para­graph that the petitioner has reason to believe that if a recounting is ordered and if the improperly accepted votes are excluded and improperly rejected votes are included the respondent No. 1 will be found to have polled less as compared to the peti­tioner appellant and thus the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance and rejection of votes by the persons concerned and the hasty and unchecked counting. These allegations with sufficient clarity set out the grounds on which the election is challenged and the ground is covered by Section 100 (1) (d) (iii). In effect the conten­tion of the respondent is that as the ballot papers which were wrongly rejected or accepted are not specifically mentioned in the petition, the petition lacks the material particulars which are required to be given under section 83 (1) (a). The petitioner had in the petition asked for permission to inspect the ballot papers and has undertaken to supply the specific ballot papers which in her opinion were wrongfully rejected or wrongfully accepted. At that stage the petitioner could do no more than to make a statement that she believed that there has been wrongful rejection of valid votes and wrongful acceptance of the invalid votes. At that stage the petitioner could do no more than to make a statement that she believed that there has been wrongful rejection of valid votes and wrongful acceptance of the invalid votes. It cannot be said that the petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of vagueness. Even the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the res­pondent and was of opinion that in the interest of justice it will be necessary to allow inspection of the ballot papers. Section 85 of the Act which gives power to the Election Commissioner to dis­miss the petition in limine, only refers to section 81 or section 82 or section 117 and not section 83. (16) The next contention of the respondent is that the Tribunal was not justified even in allow-lug inspection of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division. Section 92, which I have already re­ferred to, gives power to the Tribunal to order dis­covery and inspection of documents. Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1901 provides as follows: - "03. (1) While in the custody of the return­ing officer- (a) the packets of unused ballot papers; (b) the packets of used ballot papers whe­ther 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) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and (d) the packets of the declaration by elec­tors and the attestation of their signatures; 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 snail be furnished by the chief electoral officer of the State concerned on payment of a fee of two rupees for each, such copy". Sub-rule (1) of rule 03 thus provides that the docu­ments mentioned therein shall not be opened and inspected except under the order of a competent court or tribunal. Sub-rule (1) of rule 03 thus provides that the docu­ments mentioned therein shall not be opened and inspected except under the order of a competent court or tribunal. This rule is based on the sound public policy of maintaining secrecy of the ballot papers. Section 128 lays clown as follows: - "128. (1) Every officer, clerk, agent or other person who performs any duty in connection with the recording or counting of votes at an election shall maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of the voting and shall not (except for some purpose authorised by or under any law) commu­nicate to any person any information calculated for violate such secrecy. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with] Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both." (17) It is to maintain the secrecy of the Ballot papers that rule 93 (1) makes it clear that ballot papers cannot be inspected except by the orders of the Court or tribunal. It is within the discretion of the .tribunal to be exercised judicially to order or refuse inspection of the ballot papers. The order of inspection no doubt cannot be granted as a matter of course. But it is only in cases where In the petition one of the grounds is that the results of the election have been materially affected by wrongly refusing to count some of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and wrongly counting some of the votes in favour of the res­pondent and further the tribunal is satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete Justice between the parties the inspection of the ballot papers was essential, that inspection. 'of the ballot papers can to ordered. (18) The Tribunal in its order dated the 23rd August, 1BG2 observed as follows: - "From a perusal of the petition and other papers produced, and from a consideration of the, submissions made on either side, I am of opinion that unless the petitioner be given an opportunity to inspect as provided under Rule 93, mentioned above it is not possible for the petitioner to specify How many void votes were counted for the respon­dent who was declared elected and how many of her votes were improperly rejected. It is for this reason that I think that an inspec­tion of the ballot papers is essentially necessary and It will be only very expedient in the interest of Justice to allow an inspection of the used ballot papers kept in the custody of the returning officer, Jorhat, at this stage." The Tribunal was of opinion that the justice of the case required that the petitioner appellant should tie permitted to inspect the ballot papers and thereafter point out the ballot papers which were wrongly counted for the respondent and those which were wrongly excluded from the votes received by the appellant. (19) Strong reliance is placed by the counsel for the respondent on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Sevak Yadavv. H. K. Kidwal, reported in 1904 S C Notes 14 : ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ). The Tribunal in this case had rejected the prayer of H. K. Kidwal who was the petitioner for the ins­pection of the ballot papers. On appeal to the High Court of Allahabad the decision of the Tribunal was get aside and the petition was remanded for retrial with the direction that the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to inspect the ballot papers. On appeal to the Supreme Court this decision has been reversed. The decision of the High Court Is reported in Kidwai Hussain Kamil v. Yadav Ram Sewak, AIR. 1904 AH 86. The full decision of the Supreme Court is not available and has not yet been reported. But a brief summary of the judgment in to be found in the Supreme Court Notes men­tioned above. It Is laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows : - "An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course : having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the mate­rial facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case, and (2) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot paper is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded, an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." The case of Blum. Sen v. Gopali, reported in 22 Ele. L. K. 288 (SC) has been distinguished in this case. On the facts of that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal cannot be said to have failed to exercise its discretion pro­perly which called for an interference by the appellate court. In the judgment of the High Court the facts of that case appear in greater detail and at page 87 of the report the High Court has set out the summary of the allegations in the petition, as follows: - "Several grounds were taken in the petition in­cluding those relating to corrupt practice on the part of Yadav Ram Sewak, the respondent No. 1. The main ground however, was that a large num­ber of ballot papers had been declared to be Invalid by the returning officer, though, in fact, they were valid and that the returning officer committed an error in not accepting a large number of tendered votes which should have been accepted." In that case there was a bare allegation that the peti­tioner suspected or believed that there has been an improper refusal or rejection of votes. In the present case the allegation cannot be regarded 33 a mere allegation of suspicion on the part of the petitioner. In the present case the allegation cannot be regarded 33 a mere allegation of suspicion on the part of the petitioner. I have already referred to averments made in paragraphs 5 and 9 of the petition which clearly go to show that there was a positive asser­tion of material facts from which the petitioner appellant wanted the Tribunal to infer that the counting was not properly done, that more than 10,000 votes were rejected as improper and, further, that she believed that if the recounting is ordered and the improperly accepted votes are excluded and the improperly rejected votes are included, the respondent would get less votes than the appellant. (20) The petitioner appellant in this case also wrote to the Returning Officer requesting him to postpone the announcement of the result of the election of the Parliamentary Constituency as there was some discrepancy in the figures taken by the counting agents of the petitioner and those by the officers. It is not a case where the peti­tioner was simply trying to fish out evidence to support her plea. Further, in the present case the Tribunal itself held that there was a prima facie case to order inspection in order to do complete justice between the parties. (21) In the case of 22 Ele. L R 288 (SC) it was observed at page 296 by the Supreme Court as follows: - "In this connection it must be borne in mind that particulars in regard to the allegations of this Kind could be more definitely supplied only after the ballot box is opened and not till then. Rule 138 or present rule 93 provides for the production and inspection of election papers. Until the said papers are produced and inspected as provided by the said rule it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any party to allege affirmatively how many void votes had been counted in favour of the can­didate declared to be duly elected. Rule 138 or present rule 93 provides for the production and inspection of election papers. Until the said papers are produced and inspected as provided by the said rule it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any party to allege affirmatively how many void votes had been counted in favour of the can­didate declared to be duly elected. Considerations which apply to the allegations of misconduct speci­fied in section 83 (1) (b) would not be relevant in the case of the present allegations; and so, read­ing the original petition itself we are satisfied that the material allegations had been made with suffi­cient clarity by the appellant." (22) The two conditions laid down Toy the Supreme Court for granting inspection in Ram Sevak Ysdav's case, 19C4 S C Notes 14 : (AIR 1964 SC-1249) have been fulfilled in this case. The material facts required to be given under section 83 (1) have been given in the present case and it cannot be said that the allegations are vague and that the order of inspection was sought to fish out evidence to support such a plea and further, the Tribunal itself in the present case was satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers was necessary. (23) The Tribunal also by its subsequent order dated the 2nd November, 1962 interpreted its earlier order dated the 23rd August 1962 as limited to the inspection of the ballot boxes of Jorhat Sub­division, which to my mind, is not correct. Un­doubtedly the Tribunal which passed the earlier order is in the best position to interpret its earlier decision. But when the earlier order is clear, the effect of the order cannot be nullified by giv­ing an incorrect interpretation to its earlier order. The order of the 23rd August 1962 has referred to the allegation of the petitioner that 10,653 votes were rejected as improper, which necessarily means that the petitioner had challenged the counting of the returning officer not only in respect of the Jorhat Subdivision but In respect of the entire Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency and that the Tribunal was alive of the fact. In the operative portion also he has said : "I, therefore, hereby order the inspection of the used ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency, Jorhat. In the operative portion also he has said : "I, therefore, hereby order the inspection of the used ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency, Jorhat. I, accordingly direct that the Returning Officer, Jorhat, will allow the petitioner, her agents and her counsel to inspect the used ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency in presence of the respondents if they so desire." (24) The Tribunal in interpreting its earlier order, has confused, the allegation with regard to the recounting with the allegation that a number of votes were improperly accepted for the respon­dent No. 1 and improperly excluded from the votes obtained by the petitioner appellant. The inspec­tion of the ballot papers was allowed on the ground that this allegation could only be substantiated after the petitioner had an opportunity to inspect the ballot papers and not for supporting his allega­tion that the counting at Jorhat Subdivision was not, properly done. On the finding that in order to. do justice between the parties it was necessary to allow the appellant to inspect the ballot papers, the Tribunal could not reasonably restrict the right of the petitioner appellant to inspect the ballot papers only of the Jorhat Subdivision. (25) Mr. Goswami for the respondent ha» referred to the case of Basaviah v. Baehiah, repor­ted in 17 Ele. L R 293 (Mys). The point taken in this case was that there was a very narrow mar­gin of 42 votes and the petitioner felt that if tins votes were recounted he will be able to establish, that he had obtained more votes than the first res­pondent. It was held that the petitioner is not ea-titled to have a recount of the votes as a matter of absolute right. A recount can be ordered only it he makes out a prima facie case that if the' votes had been properly scrutinised and counted he would have got a majority of the votes. There Is no doubt that the rules framed under the Re­presentation of the People Act, 1951, set up an elaborate machinery relating to the stage of count-Ing of votes by the returning officer, and provide ample opportunity to the candidate who has con­tested the election or his agents to remain present and to keep an eye on any improper action which may be taken by the returning officer. Thus a ] candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground that there has been improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes at the time of count­ing Has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinised and opened, and the votes were coun­ted. He has also opportunity of inspection of rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a recount. Thus the mere allegation that on recounting the petitioner hopes that the petitioner will get more votes will not entitle the petitioner to get the inspection of the ballot papers. But in a case where the petitioner bases his petition on the ground that if the votes which have been wrongly rejected and the votes which have been wrongly counted are scrutinised, the petitioner is likely to get more votes, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be allowed an opportunity to inspect the ballot papers. (26) It is difficult to appreciate the observa­tion of the Tribunal that he saw no reason to interfere with the finding of the Returning Officer where he, being satisfied, had exercised discretion. He observed as follows : "But there are quite a number of votes on back side and double or multiple marks on the front side both in the accepted and rejected votes. Such votes are not valid votes. Indistinct marks for only one candidate can, however, be counted. Ballot paper bearing more marks than, one cannot be accepted whether one Is more prominent than the other, if the intention to vote for one cannot be gathered, and herein comes the ques­tion of discretion." The Tribunal has not referred to any rule to show what Is the extent of the discretion to be exercised by the Returning Officer and what he meant by saying that the discretion of the Return-lag Officer cannot be upset by him. If the peti­tioner pointed out certain ballot papers to the Tri­bunal and contends that those have been either wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted, it was for the Tribunal to decide that matter, -no matter whether his decision may be against the decision of the Returning Officer. The Tribunal seems to have confused the question of recounting with, the question of improper rejection and acceptance «f votes. The Tribunal seems to have confused the question of recounting with, the question of improper rejection and acceptance «f votes. (27) The case of the petitioner appellant as I have already indicated was that the results of the election have been materially affected by im­proper acceptance and rejection of votes. That facing so, the proper procedure was to allow the petitioner to inspect the ballot papers and by means of an application to point out to the Tribunal the ballot papers which according to the petitioner on inspection were, found to have been improperly accepted or rejected, and thereupon, the Tribunal could have scrutinised those ballot papers and deci­ded whether the objection of the petitioner was valid or not. It does not appear from the record that after the inspection was done by the peti­tioner even of the Jorhat Sub-division, the peti­tioner was asked to specify the ballot papers which were either wrongly accepted or improperly rejec­ted. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in limiting his previous order allowing inspection of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division only of the Jorhat Constituency. I would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and-send back the case to the Tribu­nal to hear the petition and dispose it of accord­ing to law after allowing the petitioner to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Subdivision also. (28) U. S. NAYUUU, J. : I agree. DUTTA, J.: (29) I have had the opportunity of going through the judgment prepared by my Lord the Chief Jus­tice. With due respect I find myself in disagree­ment with him and hence give my own judgment. (30) This appeal is against the order of the Kember of the Election Tribunal, Jorhat, in con­nection with the election of respondent No. 1 Sri Kajendra Nath Barua from the Jorhat Parliamen­tary Constituency. The facts leading to the peti­tion are as follows: The Jorhat Parliamentary Con­stituency comprises of two Sub-divisions, .namely Jorhat and Golaghat Sub-division. In the election held in i'ebruary, 1962 for this constituency there were three contesting candidates. The appellant Begum Malida Ahmed was the contesting candidate on Congress ticket, respondent No. 1 Shri Rajendra Nath Barua contested the election on Praja Socialist Party ticket and Shri Hem Chandra Saha (respon­dent No. 2) was an independent candidate. In the election held in i'ebruary, 1962 for this constituency there were three contesting candidates. The appellant Begum Malida Ahmed was the contesting candidate on Congress ticket, respondent No. 1 Shri Rajendra Nath Barua contested the election on Praja Socialist Party ticket and Shri Hem Chandra Saha (respon­dent No. 2) was an independent candidate. Votes -were polled by them as follows: (1) Shri Hajendra Nath Barua----- 78,001, (2) Begum Maflcla Ahmed ----- 77,184, (3) Shri Hem Chandra Saha ----- 30, 340. There were 10,653 invalid votes. Shri Rajendi'a Nath Barua was declared elected. Against this election Begum Mafida Ahmad who was defeated, tiled the petition. This petition was dismissed by the Tribunal and hence this appeal by her. The appellant's case, as disclosed in her petition, was that while she personally supervised the counting of votes at Golaghat, she entrusted the same at Jorhat to her agents. On her return from Golaghat en 27-2-G2 she understood from her agents at Jorhat that the Returning Officer at Jorhat made last minute changes in the counting hall which resulted in serious difficulties and anomalies and that the Returning Officer approved only eight counting agents out of twenty names given by her and dis­missed the rest. She further understood that the counting went on simultaneously on thirty four tables in one hail, with the result that it was humanly impossible for her agents to watch the counting effectively. Moreover, four out of eight of her agents observed Ramzan fasting and hence only four agents alone had to watch the counting for her. A request to allow a few relievers to relieve those who observed fasting was rejected by the Returning Officer without adequate or proper reasons. The appellant further alleged in her peti­tion that ballot papers marked with her symbol were misplaced in the pigeon hole meant for the rival candidate and that it was physically impossi­ble for her agents to know and note the particu­lars of such improperly accepted votes. As many as 10,653 votes were rejected as improper. The appellant said in her petition that she would be in a position to furnish full details of the aforesaid facts only after inspection and she prayed for per­mission for the same. She further said that she had good reasons to believe that a large number of votes were improperly received and accepted by the Returning Officer which had affected the result materially. She further said that she had good reasons to believe that a large number of votes were improperly received and accepted by the Returning Officer which had affected the result materially. The counting of votes, it was alleged, at Jorhat by the Returning Officer was not only irregular, but also illegal and the figures as declared by the said Officer were not the correct figures. It was, there­fore, prayed that the election of the respondent No. 1 should be declared void. It was further prayed that a recounting of the votes of the Jorhat Sub­division should be ordered and if on recounting it was found that the appellant had received a larger number of votes, she should be declared elected. (31) On the 6th August, 1062 the Appellant filed an application before the Election Tribunal pray­ing that all the ballot papers of the Jorhat Parlia­mentary Constituency should be scrutinised to find out if any vote was improperly rejected or accepted. (32) By an application filed on the same date respondent No. 1 opposed the appellant's applica­tion on the ground that such a procedure would be against the provisions of law. The learned Mem­ber of the Tribunal by his order dated 23-8-63 allowed "inspection" of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Parliamentary Constituency, Jorhat, mainly on the ground that the appellant said in her peti­tion that she would be able to furnish full details about improper acceptance or rejection of, ballot papers only after inspection. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court against this order but this was rejected summarily. Consequently the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division were opened and inspected and the ballot papers of some centres of the Golaghat Sub-division were also opened. Thereafter, on the 29th October, 1962 the respondent No. 1 filed a petition saying that the appellant completed her inspection of the ballot, papers of the Jorhat Sub-division on 26-10-62 and was claiming her right before the Returning Officer to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub­division as well. So the respondent No. 1 prayed that the Tribunal's order allowing inspection should be clarified. On this the Tribunal heard arguments of Doth the sides and passed an order on 2-11-02 saying that his order dated 23-8-62 allowing inspec­tion was meant for the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division only. So the respondent No. 1 prayed that the Tribunal's order allowing inspection should be clarified. On this the Tribunal heard arguments of Doth the sides and passed an order on 2-11-02 saying that his order dated 23-8-62 allowing inspec­tion was meant for the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division only. The Tribunal added that as the appellant herself wanted in her election peti­tion the recounting of votes of the Jorhat Sub­division only, his order could not be construed to apply to the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub­division. Thereafter by a petition dated 28-11-62 the appellant prayed for amendment of her original petition to include the inspection and recounting of the ballot papers of the entire Jorhat Parlia­mentary Constituency. She alleged in that peti­tion that some irregularities and illegalities being already found during the Inspection with regard to a part of the Marangi centre in the Golaghat Sub-division it was just and proper that the prayer for the "amendment should be granted. This peti­tion was rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter the trial of the petition proceeded. Some evidence was led although the petitioner did not examine herself, and the Tribunal after taking the evidence and hearing the parties passed his order which is under appeal now. (38) As regards the ballot papers of the Jorhat Kubidivision which were inspected, the Tribunal found that many of the ballot papers which the appellant alleged to have been improperly rejected or accepted, could not be said to have been so re­jected or accepted. But even if the entire number of COS votes regarding which the appellant object­ed, as having been wrongly accepted in favour of respondent No. 1 were deducted from the total number of votes polled by the said respondent, and 144 votes which the appellant alleged to have been wrongly rejected, were added to the total number of votes polled by the appellant, yet the appellant could not win. The Tribunal therefore, did not con­sider it necessary to scrutinise the aforesaid ballot papers and do a recounting. The inspection of the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division having been refused, the election petition was rejected. (34) The only submission made before us is that the case should be remanded with a direction to allow the petitioner to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division. The petitioner already inspected the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-divi­sion. The inspection of the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division having been refused, the election petition was rejected. (34) The only submission made before us is that the case should be remanded with a direction to allow the petitioner to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division. The petitioner already inspected the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-divi­sion. It appears that she has not found enough material as yet to succeed in her petition. She will know where she stands only if the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division are inspected. It must be clearly understood that it is not the appellant's case before us that the election is materially affected by any irregularities discovered till now, or that the recounting of the ballot papers which have been inspected, should be done. Her contention is that she should be allowed to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division and that then and then only she will know whether any recount­ing would be necessary. I shall therefore confine myself to the question whether she is entitled to inspect the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-divi­sion. (35) There are provisions in the Representa­tion of People Act I!I51 and the Conduct of Election Rules 1931 relating to inspection, scrutiny and counting and recounting of ballot papers. Rule 54 of the above Rules authorise the Returning Officer to reject a ballot paper under certain circumstances. But sub-rule (3) of the said Rule provides that be­fore rejecting any ballot paper the Returning Offi­cer shall allow each counting agent present a reason­able opportunity to inspect the ballot paper. Under Rule 03 an application for recount may be made and the Returning Officer may allow the petition in whole or in part or may reject it in to if it ap­pears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (36) From the above Rules, it is clear that a ballot paper is not rejected behind the back of a candidate and his counting agent gets an oppor­tunity of inspecting each rejected ballot paper. Secondly, a prima facie case has to be made out for a recount and a recount cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Thirdly, even If a recount la claimed of the whole constituency, the Returning Officer may allow recount of a few Centres in res­pect of which there is a prima facie case for a recount. Secondly, a prima facie case has to be made out for a recount and a recount cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Thirdly, even If a recount la claimed of the whole constituency, the Returning Officer may allow recount of a few Centres in res­pect of which there is a prima facie case for a recount. (37) Under Section 92 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Tribunal has the powers of a Civil Court including the power to order "dis­covery and inspection". The question is under what circumstances the Court can allow Inspec­tion of ballot papers. In this regard the law in India is the same as In England. In Stowe v. Jolliffe, (1874) 9 CP 734: 22 WR 911: 30 LT 795P Grove, J. intimated his opinion that a strong case would be required to justify an order for the Ins­pection of the rejected ballot papers 'or counter­foils. In India, the Supreme Court had laid down In C. A. No. 1064 of 1963: ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ) the circumstances in which Inspection may be allowed, as follows: "An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insist­ence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (1) that the petition for setting aside an elec­tion contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (2) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete Justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. But an order for inspection of ballot papers can­not be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish' out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision sup­ported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be .granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an im­proper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection". To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be .granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an im­proper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection". (38) In the case before us, the appellant in her original petition alleged certain irregularities in the counting of votes of the Jorhat Sub-division. There was no allegation whatsoever regarding counting of the votes of the Golaghat Sub-division. She was personally present at the counting at Golaghat. The prayer in the petition was made for recounting of the votes polled in the Jorhat Sub-division only. No prayer was made for the recounting of votes of the Golaghat Sub-division. Even in the subsequent petition made for inspec­tion of the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-divi­sion, no ground was given to justify any inspec­tion. Instead of giving a concise statement of the material facts the appellant in her election peti­tion simply said that 10,653 votes were rejected as improper and that she would be in a position to furnish full details of the aforesaid votes only after inspection. This shows that the appellant wanted an inspection to fish out materials to find out if there was any improper acceptance or re­jection of any ballot papers. (39) The case of 22 Ele LR 288 (SC) Is cited In support of the contention that definite particulars can be supplied only after inspection. What hap­pened in that case is as follows:- The Constituency involved was a double member constituency. Sec­tion 63 (1) of the Representation of the People Act pro­vided that in a plural member constituency every elector should have as many votes as there were members to be elected but no elector should give more than one vote to any candidate. Sub-sec­tion (2) laid down that if an elector gave more than one vote to a candidate, only one vote would be taken Into consideration and the rest would be rejected as void. The petitioner alleged that the Returning Officer having failed to discharge his duty of rejecting the ballot papers himself in con­travention of Section 63, the petitioner 'believed' that the respondents 'could' receive many void votes. The petitioner alleged that the Returning Officer having failed to discharge his duty of rejecting the ballot papers himself in con­travention of Section 63, the petitioner 'believed' that the respondents 'could' receive many void votes. An inspection was allowed and the petitioner thereafter applied to amend the petition to say that the petitioner 'alleged' that the respondents did receive some void votes. The Tribunal allowed the amendment and allowed the petition. The High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and field that the Tribunal erred in law in allowing the amendment. The Supreme Court held that in case like this, definite particulars about the num­ber and nature of the void votes that had been counted could only be supplied after Inspection of the ballot papers; the election petition as original­ly presented must, therefore, be regarded as hav­ing given the material particulars, and the amend­ment petition must be treated merely as an appli­cation for clarification of the pleadings. (40) It may be noted that In the original peti­tion in the above case, in paragraph 10, there was a concise statement of material facts. It was alleged that the Returning Officer himself did not discharge 'the duty of rejecting the ballot papers. In a double member Constituency it was incumbent upon the Returning Officer to go into each case of double voting. This was not done. Thus the petitioner gave grounds on which his belief that many void votes were accepted was based. These were certain­ly reasonable grounds on which an inspection could be allowed. But in the case before us there is not even an expression of belief or suspicion in the original petition about the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division. The argument that no fact whatsoever could possibly be given till an inspec­tion was made, cannot be accepted. In this connec­tion the following observation made by the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 1064 of 1963 : (AIR 1964 S C 1249) (ibid) is apposite, viz: "it must be remembered that the rules framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 set up an elaborate machinery relating to the stage of counting of votes by the returning officer, and provide ample opportunity to the candidate who has contested the election or his agents to remain present and to keep an eye on any improper action which may be taken by the returning officer. There can therefore be no doubt that at every stage in the process of scrutiny and counting of votes the candidate or his agents have an oppor­tunity of remaining present at the counting of votes, watching the proceedings of the returning officer, inspecting any rejected votes and to demand a re­count. Therefore, a candidate who seeks to chal­lenge an election on the ground that there has been Improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes at the time of counting, has ample oppor­tunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinised and opened, and the votes were counted. He has also oppor­tunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a re-count. It is in the light of the provisions of S. 83(1) which require a concise state­ment of material facts on which the petitioner relies and the opportunity which a defeated candi­date had at the time of counting, of watching and of claiming a re-count that the application for ins­pection must be considered." (41) In the present case there is not a single allegation by the appellant that there was any objection by her or by any of her counting agents against the rejection or acceptance of any ballot paper by the Returning Officer. Nor did the peti­tioner ask the Returning Officer for a re-count under Rule 63. On the other hand, she wrote a letter to the Returning Officer (Ex. A) only requesting that the announcement of the result of the election should be postponed as the official figure did not tally with the figures taken by her counting agents. There was no allegation of any irregularity in this letter also. The petitioner then sent a wire (Ex. B) to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam. Shillong as follows: "Lodge protest counting of Jorhat Parliamen­tary Constituency solicit re-counting positively". (42) Thus, it will appear that instead of tak­ing advantage of Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elec­tion Rules, 1961, the appellant Begum Mafida Ahmed tried her best to bring in extraneous in­tervention in her favour. It may be noted that in order to demand a re-counting under Rule 63, the petitioner has to make out a reasonable case. Apparently, she was not in a position to do so and that is why she sought other means than the means given to her by law. It may be noted that in order to demand a re-counting under Rule 63, the petitioner has to make out a reasonable case. Apparently, she was not in a position to do so and that is why she sought other means than the means given to her by law. (43) In short, there is a complete absence In the original petition and even in the subsequent petition of any fact necessitating inspection of ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division and in the original petition, re-counting of votes of the Jorhat Sub-division only was prayed for. Before allowing the inspection of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division, the Tribunal should have satisfied itself that there was a prima facie case for inspection of those ballot papers. Unfortunately the Tribunal allowed inspection and later gave the finding that the allegations in the petition appear­ed to be more or less suspicious and imaginary and that nothing definite had been shown as to how there was irregularity in the counting of votes. Had the Tribunal considered the merit of the allega­tions before allowing the inspection, as it should have done, and come to such a finding, no inspec­tion even of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub­division could then be allowed. But the inspec­tion of the ballot papers of the Jorhat Sub-division is a fait accompli. But as regards the ballot papers of the Golaghat Sub-division, no inspection can be granted as there is not an iota of material fact in the original or subsequent petition and con­sequently there is no prima facie case to justify such an inspection. In the result, this appeal must fail. PER CURIAM. (44) In view of the decision of the majority, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the Tri­bunal is set aside. The case is sent back to the Tribunal for decision according to law, after allow­ing inspection to the appellant of the ballot papers as directed in the judgment. The cost of this ap­peal will abide the result of the election petition. The hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 100/-. Appeal allowed.