JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, C.J.I. 1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful election petitioner against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi, December 6, 1967, by which his election petition was dismissed. The election concerned the Una Constituency in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. There were six candidates; one withdrew from the contest. The appellant and Parkash Chand - the first respondent were the two candidates who got the second and the first highest number of votes. The difference between them was 56 votes. The polling took place on February 18, 1967 at 36 polling stations. The counting of ballot papers was undertaken on February 22, 1967 and was concluded the next day at 12.30 a.m. The result was announced and Form 20 was signed by the Returning Officer. It appears that immediately after Form 20 was signed, an application was made to the Returning Officer complaining about the counting of votes in the Constituency. That application is Ex. PW1/1 and reads as follows: "Sir, The votes polled in the above Constituency have not been correctly and rightly counted. The staff for the counting of these votes have committed mistakes in counting either intentionally or unintentionally. As a matter of fact, the appellant has secured the highest number of votes. Under the circumstances it is requested that votes polled in this Constituency may kindly be counted." Since this application was belated and disclosed hardly any grounds for a recount it was rejected. 2. The election petition set out numerous grounds of attack. It also charged the returned candidate with corrupt practice but since no ground of corrupt practice was made out before us, we need not refer to those allegations. It was, however, stated in amplification of the petition for recount that the count was conducted at the hands of persons who belonged to the teaching profession and as the returned candidate was a teacher there was considerable bias in his favour at the counting of the votes. It was also alleged that the light was insufficient and the whole thing was done in a hurry without affording adequate opportunity to the election petitioner and his agents to verify the votes before they were put in bundles. It was also alleged that the light was insufficient and the whole thing was done in a hurry without affording adequate opportunity to the election petitioner and his agents to verify the votes before they were put in bundles. Many other allegations were made such as that votes of the election petitioner were wrongly put in the bundle of the returned candidate and that attention of the Returning Officer was drawn to these illegalities and irregularities during the count. The election petitioner specified the votes which he, claimed to have been wrongly counted or rejected and appended to his election petition a statement, Ex. B in which he gave a list of 29 votes which he challenged as wrongly accepted on behalf of the returned candidate and 47 votes which he claimed should have been counted as his but were wrongly rejected. He, therefore, claimed a general recount both of the accepted votes and the rejected votes. 3. The learned Judge heard a number of witnesses, but at the hearing of the case before him the election petitioner said that the evidence of the witnesses might be put aside and the matter should be considered on his allegations and the documents on the record of the case. The learned Judge rejected his contention that the accepted votes be re-scrutinised. He, however, felt that inasmuch as about 1300 out of about 17000 votes had been rejected, it was probably necessary to look into them to see whether the votes belonging to the election petitioner had been wrongly rejected. 1286 of these rejected votes were therefore scrutinised by the election petitioner and he brought forth 73 votes for the inspection of the court. The learned Judge looked at 12 and came to the conclusion that only three of them might be counted in favour of the election petitioner. He dismissed the petition holding that no case for a recount was made. 4. It was contended before us that the learned Judge should not have confined his attention only to a dozen votes when 73 votes had been brought for his inspection. We thought that it was necessary to look at the remaining votes out of the bundle of 73 votes, and after examining the whole lot of them, we found that not more than three which could be said to have been wrongly rejected. We thought that it was necessary to look at the remaining votes out of the bundle of 73 votes, and after examining the whole lot of them, we found that not more than three which could be said to have been wrongly rejected. Even as to these three, there could be two opinions. It appears, therefore, that out of 1286 rejected votes not more than three, if at all, could have been said to have been wrongly rejected. In other words, the election petitioner has been unable to sustain his claim that his votes in large number had been wrongly rejected. This gives a lie to his contention that the light was not sufficient or that the petromax lamps which were brought by the Returning Officer were not working properly. It also gives a further lie to his claim that the teachers who were the persons counting and assembling ballots were biased against him. 5. The learned counsel for the election petitioner next contended that we should examine the accepted votes to see whether the acceptance of the votes was proper or not. In view of the test check which the learned Judge had made and also the test check made by us, we do not think that any ground now exists for such scrutiny. It must be remembered that no objection was properly raised at the proper time by the election petitioner before the Returning Officer. His application before the Returning Officer was itself filed after the time allowed by law. In that petition he made a general averment and did not advert to the fact of bias or want of light or any such thing. His election petition was confined to the Schedule B, a great part of which we have now scrutinised and found not sustainable. In this view of the matter we do not think that we can order the examination of the accepted votes because the test count has not given the result which would justify us to order a general recount. 6. The appeal fails and shall be dismissed with costs.