Order.- It appears to me to be abundantly clear, from the facts which are not controverted, that the learned District Munsif — Presiding Officer — who acted as the Election Court in respect of the proceeding to set aside the election relating to Reddipalayam Panchayat, Chengam Taluk, held on 2nd February, 1965, quite misconceived the character of his functions and powers and the scope of his jurisdiction. The facts themselves are not in dispute and have not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the first respondent acting as amicus curiae, since the respondents themselves did not appear in this Court to contest the revision petition. Briefly stated, the situation is that with respect to Ward No. 1 of this Panchayat, three members had to be elected, and the respondents 1 to 3 were declared elected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner (first respondent) filed O.P. No. 8 of 1965 challenging this election, on the ground of various infirmities and irregularities. In particular, he contended that 22 votes had been refused or rejected by the Returning Officer and that this was “ improper, invalid and illegal.” He made the averment that this improper rejection had materially affected the result of the election. The learned District Munsif, as Election Tribunal sent for these 22 votes which had been segregated after rejection, and made an inspection and recount. Had he merely stopped there, probably something could be said for the legality of his proceedings. But he went further accepted some votes and rejected others, and not merely this, he went into the propriety of other votes also, some of which he rejected. The net result was that he declared that the petitioner before him (first respondent) and respondents 1 and 3 before him were duly elected persons; respondent 2 before him (revision petitioner), was declared to have lost the election. Respondent 2 now institutes this proceeding in revision and I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the absent respondents. I do not think that it can be seriously doubted that the proceedings of the Election Tribunal were vitiated by error and excess jurisdiction. First of all, even a bare inspection and recount of votes rejected by a Returning Officer, are not matters of mere routine. I do not think that it can be seriously doubted that the proceedings of the Election Tribunal were vitiated by error and excess jurisdiction. First of all, even a bare inspection and recount of votes rejected by a Returning Officer, are not matters of mere routine. In Sowak v. H.K. Kulwa1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider a case in which it was the High Court that had granted a prayer for inspection and recount, though that relief had been denied by the Election Tribunal. It was held by the Supreme Court that an order for inspection was not a matter of course and that having regard to the secrecy of the ballot, the Court would be justified in granting the order for inspection only on two conditions being fulfilled, namely (1) that the petition itself contained an adequate statement of material facts relied on by the petitioner in support of his case, and (2) that the Tribunal was prima facie, satisfied that in order to satisfactorily do justice to the controversy, inspection of the ballot papers was essential. In the present case, and this is the reason why I have earlier quoted from the petition all that the petitioner states is that the rejection of 22 votes was “ improper invalid and illegal” . This is not at all sufficient compliance with the requirement laid down in the Supreme Court decision. The petitioner should specifically state why he was impugning the rejection of these votes and what were the grounds therefor. If the Tribunal is satisfied that inspection and recount are necessary in the light of the averments, it may certainly proceed to order these steps. This apart, it appears most doubtful if the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to proceed into the propriety of other votes not within the ambit of the pleadings at all. This in effect is to constitute the Tribunal as a Returning Officer, which is not the intendment of the Rules. The Supreme Court decision, no doubt, related to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Election Rules (1961) thereunder. But it is not in controversy before me that the Election Rules with regard to Panchayats closely follow the Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act. The Supreme Court decision, no doubt, related to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Election Rules (1961) thereunder. But it is not in controversy before me that the Election Rules with regard to Panchayats closely follow the Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act. For these reasons, I allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal, and remit the entire proceedings back to the Election Tribunal for disposal according to law. With regard to the 22 votes the petitioner is bound to give particulars why he impugns the rejection of these votes and if the Tribunal is satisfied, it may certainly order inspection and recount. With regard to the propriety of the other votes, this will entirely depend on the allegations made, and the powers under the Rules for the Tribunal to reassess these facts or to recount them. Ordered accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs. V.S. ------------ Ordered accordingly.