B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) (HIS Lordship held after considering sec. 19 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 and Rules 22 26 33 35 39 40 and 41 of the Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules 1964 that it cannot be gain said that the principle of secrecy of ballot papers is completely incorporated in the said statute. Similarly in view of sec. 30 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 and Rules 22 23 29 31 33 39 40 and 41 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules 1962 the principle of secrecy of ballot papers is also incorporated in the said statute and the Rules framed thereunder. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Sevak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and Ors. A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1249 and Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Bihari Ors. A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 227 would be applicable. Therefore the basic requirements to be satisfied before an Election Tribunal or a Judge hearing election petition can order the recount and scrutiny of votes as to the statement of material facts for the prima facie satisfaction of the Tribunal or Judge must be complied with. His Lordship further observed:-16 In view of what is stated above therefore in my opinion the contention of Mr. P. M. Raval and Mr. S. D. Shah on behalf of the respective petitioners that the learned Judges hearing the respective election applications had no material particulars before them and in any case there was no evidence worth its name from which the learned Judges could be prima facie satisfied that an order for recount and scrutiny was necessary in the interest of justice must prevail. In my opinion the learned Judges hearing the respective election applications have over looked this principle of secrecy of ballot papers accepted and incorporated in the two statutes and the Rules framed thereunder. As the secrecy of ballot papers is guaranteed by the statutes it cannot be gain said that the learned Judges hearing the election applications under those statutes should insist at least for the bare statements of material particulars in support of the relief claimed in the petitions as to the recount and scrutiny of votes. As the secrecy of ballot papers is guaranteed by the statutes it cannot be gain said that the learned Judges hearing the election applications under those statutes should insist at least for the bare statements of material particulars in support of the relief claimed in the petitions as to the recount and scrutiny of votes. Of course the nature of particulars would depend upon the facts of each case but without such particulars it would obviously be not desirable that what have been termed nebulous allegations should be made sole basis for the purpose of granting a general scrutiny of the ballot papers. The recount and scrutiny of ballot papers in both these petitions was sought on the basis of assertions which were neither accompanied by a statement of material facts nor supported by any evidence. As can be seen from the relevant election Rules under the respective statutes here is no doubt that at every stage in the process of scrutiny and counting the candidate or his agents had an adequate and ample opportunity of watching the proceedings inspecting any accepted or rejected votes and to demand a recount and therefore a person seeking to challenge the election on the ground that there has been improper acceptance rejection or refusal of votes at the time of counting had ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were opened the votes were scrutinized and counted and therefore in a position to give the particulars about such improper reception rejection or refusal of votes. It is not too difficult or impossible for persons seeking to challenge election on these grounds to note the serial number of the concerned ballot papers or to file objections regarding such ballot papers. These would be the material particulars in respect of such votes which the persons seeking to challenge the election must state. [ The rest of the judgment is not material for the reports ] .