JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - The Petitioner-a successful elected candidate to the office of Aida Grama Pinchayat in the District of Dhenkanal challenges the order for recount of ballot papers passed by the learned Munsif of Athmallik in a proceeding u/s 31 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat 1964 (Orissa Act I of 1965) in which the Petitioner's election was challenged by the defeated candidate. 2. On May 22, 1967 there was a polling for election to the office of Sarpanch of Aida Grama Panchayat in Athmalik Block of the district of Dhenkanal at which the Petitioner was elected. On June 19, 1967 the defeated candidate filed before the learned Munsif of Athmalik an application in which be made a prayer for recount of the votes passed by the candidates; the learned Munsif, after taking evidence of both parties and hearing their lawyer, declared the election of the opposite party before him (Petitioner herein) as Sarpanch of the Aida Grama Panchayat to be void and further declared the Petitioner before him (opposite party herein) to be the duly elected in the office of Sarpanch of the said Grama Panchayat. The said application for recounting of votes was opposed by the present Petitioner who was the opposite party in that proceeding and he filed a written statement objecting to the recounting of votes. 3. On August 23, 1967 the learned Munsif elected the petition objecting to the recounting of votes on the finding that unless he recounted the votes" the issue raised before him whether there has been an improper rejection or admission of any votes at the said election by any of the officers entrusted with election work-cannot be answered the learned Munsif ordered that "for the ends of, justice,. I will have to recount the votes in the presence of parties in open Court no matter to which side the result goes." It is against this order of the learned Munsif that, the Petitioner who objected to there count has filed this civil revision. 4. I will have to recount the votes in the presence of parties in open Court no matter to which side the result goes." It is against this order of the learned Munsif that, the Petitioner who objected to there count has filed this civil revision. 4. The settled position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court is, in substance, this: An order for recount may' not he granted as a matter of course; having regard to the insistenee upon the secrecy of the ballot papers the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled:(i) that the petition for setting aside an, election contains adequate statements the material facts on which the Petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) that. theTribunal 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 'their Lordships also made it clear that an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot; be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts on to fish out evidence, to support such pleas. The case of the Petitioner must be Act 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 Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Others. Thus a candidate who seeks a declaration that the election of the returned candidate was void and that he (Petitioner) was duly elected, on the ground that if the votes had been properly counted, he would have got a majority of votes, is not entitled to have a recount of the votes as a matter of absolute right. A recount can be ordered only if 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 Basaviah v. Bachiah and Ors. 17 Election Law Reports 293. 5. A recount can be ordered only if 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 Basaviah v. Bachiah and Ors. 17 Election Law Reports 293. 5. In the present case, the only question is whether in the opinion of the learned Munsif a prima facie case was made out on specific instances, or whether it was merely by way of fishing out evidence to support the pleas made in the election petition. 6. In my opinion, the election petition filed by the defeated candidate (opposite party herein) contains adequate statements of material facts which could justify an order for recount and in the interests of justice also such recount was necessary. 7. The reasons for my taking this view are these: In the election petition filed by the defeated candidate before the learned Munsif the material facts on which he asked for recount are stated in, inter alia, paragraphs 6 and 8 which Me quoted below: 6. That the Petitioner got 578 votes and the opposite got 590 votes, while 193 votes were rejected and the opposite party was declared as election to the office of Sarpanch of Aida Grama Panchayat on.... 8. That nearly 100 votes casted in favour of the Petitioner were improperly rejected while some 80 votes casted in favour of the opposite party which would have been rejected, were improperly admitted. Had there been a just and proper counting, the Petitioner would have been declared elected by a margin of nearly 150 votes. It is thus clear that the allegation is not based on mere suspicion or belief but is supported by averments based on material facts, justifying a recount. 8. In the view I have taken of this case, on merits, it is unnecessary to deal with the other points including the question of maintainability of this civil revision. 9. In the result, the order of the learned Munsif dated August 23, 1967 by which he rejected the objection petition to the recounting of votes is upheld. This Civil Revision is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs 50/- (Rupees fifty only). Final Result : Dismissed