Judgment B.D.Singh, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the sole petitioner in order to quash the order dated 4th February, 1972 (Annexure 1) of the Election Tribunal, respondent No. 4, ordering recount of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner. 2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this application, it will be necessary to briefly state the facts. The petitioner was elected as Mukhiya of Bhairwa tole Bhawanipur Gram Panchnyat In the district of Champaran on the 19th of January, 1970, Mathnra Prasad respondent No. 1, challenged the election of the petitioner before respondent No. 4 on various grounds including corrupt practice. Witnesses on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 were examined before the Election Tribunal. On the 16th October, 1971, respondent No. 1 filed a petition for inspection of ballot papers and recounting of the same. The petitioner, however, objected on the ground that the Tribunal should not allow piecemeal trial and recounting of the ballot papers should not be ordered as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 4 held in favour of respondent No. 1 and directed the recounting and inspection of votes cast in favour of the petitioner by the impugned order. 3. Mr. Gorakhnath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised chiefly two points for consideration by this Court, namely, (i) when the hearing of the election case had advanced, the Tribunal ought not to have decided about the recounting of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner as a preliminary issue, and (it) the Tribunal erred in giving direction of recounting of votes which were cast in favour of the petitioner alone. According to learned counsel, for the ends of justice, respondent No, 4 ought to have ordered recounting of the votes which were cast also in favour of respondent No. 1, I will take up for consideration point No. 1 first. In my opinion, there is no merit in this point as it is well-established that a Tribunal has discretion to decide about recounting of votes cast in favour of one party or the other as a preliminary issue. Moreover, in the instant case only a few witnesses were examined. There are other more witnesses to be examined on behalf of the parties. Moreover, in the instant case only a few witnesses were examined. There are other more witnesses to be examined on behalf of the parties. Therefore the hearing of the election petition had not advanced to a considerable extent. 4. Now I advert to consider the submission of learned counsel under point No. (ii). In order to substantiate his contention he referred to Rule 74 of the Pachayat Election Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to af the Rules). He drew my attention to clause (a) of Rule 74, which reads as:- - "that the petitioner or such other candidate in fact received a majority of valid votes;" He also referred to Rule 87 which deals with the discretionary power of the Tribunal and it reads as: "Discretionary powers -- In respect of any matter not specifically provided for in these rules, the Election Tribunal shall proceed in such manner as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case." In my opinion, these rules do not indicate that counting of ballot papers should be ordered as against both the parties even if no such application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal. In Rasik Lal Yadav V/s. Bhola Nath Mandal, AIR 1971 Pat 10 a Full Bench of this Court has held at page 15 that the Tribunal has full jurisdiction to scrutinise and recount the ballot papers in order to come to a correct conclusion as to which of the contesting candidates has been duly elected and to make requisite declaration under the first part of Rule 82 (1). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that in the ends of justice he ought to have ordered for recount of ballot papers given in favour of both the parties. He referred to paragraph 4 of the said judgment and urged that in that case also recounting of ballot papers cast in favour of both the parties was ordered. In my view paragraph 4 of the judgment does not indicate at all that such order was passed. In my opinon it cannot be held that the Election Tribunal was bound to order recounting of ballot papers cast in favour of both the parties. The Tribunal has, full jurisdiction to pass any order in this regard. In my view paragraph 4 of the judgment does not indicate at all that such order was passed. In my opinon it cannot be held that the Election Tribunal was bound to order recounting of ballot papers cast in favour of both the parties. The Tribunal has, full jurisdiction to pass any order in this regard. If the contention of learned counsel is to be accepted, it will amount to saying that in no circumstance a Tribunal can pass an order of recounting of ballot papers of the petitioner and the Tribunal was bound to order recounting of ballot papers of both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to refer to any case in which any such decision was taken by this Court. In the circumstances, therefore, I find no merit under this point as well. 5 In the result, the application is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.