Judgment H.L.Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as to why the orders dated the 24th Of August. 1971 (Annexure 2) and dated 26th of August, 1971 (Annexure 3) passed by the Election Tribunal, Araria (Purnea), hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Election Tribunal case No. 1 of 1971 be not quashed and cancelled. 2. By order dated the 24th of August, 1971 the Tribunal refused the prayer of the petitioner for recounting and inspection and thereafter by the second order, i. e., order dated 26th of August, 1971, it has dismissed the election petition itself on merits. 3. The short facts leading to the controversy are that the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 were candidates for the election for the office of Mukhiya of Kankhudia Gram Panchayat in the district of Purnea, which took place on the 23rd of May, 1971 at booth Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner lost the election by a margin of one vote only to respondent No. 1. The petitioner secured 559 votes whereas respondent No. I 560 votes and accordingly he was declared elected. The petitioner filed an election case before the Tribunal, as aforesaid. The election petition is Annexure 4 to this writ application. The petitioner in paragraph 9 of the election petition has made a statement that the voter of ballot paper No. 36 has not put any seal and that of ballot paper No. 459 put seals on the symbols of two candidates, namely, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, and, therefore, those two ballot papers which should have been declared invalid have been wrongly counted. At another place in the petition in paragraph 14, he stated that the circumstances and the facts of the case required recounting of the ballot papers. The order sheet of the election case is Annexure 1 to the petition. On 9th June, 1971 the Tribunal passed an order for reminding the Block Development Officer concerned to send the ballot papers without any delay as the next date for counting had been fixed on 15-6-1971. The parties started adducing evidence in this case and the petitioner examined certain witnesses. From the mouth of those witnesses the petitioner wanted to show that the ballot papers had been wrongly counted by the Presiding Officer. The parties started adducing evidence in this case and the petitioner examined certain witnesses. From the mouth of those witnesses the petitioner wanted to show that the ballot papers had been wrongly counted by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer himself was examined as D W. 1 in this case and some of his statements are referred to in the order dated 24th of August, 1971 by the Tribunal itself. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner had objected to the allowing of the two concerned votes to respondent No. 1 at the time of counting at the booth, but his objection was overruled by him The petitioner also had got this fact of the objection stated through the mouth of other witnesses examined by him. The Tribunal has considered their evidence no doubt, in the order Annexure 2", but in view of the two certificates, namely, Exhibits A-1 and B which were issued by the counting agents of the petitioner to the effect that the counting was done fairly, the Tribunal has concluded that that evidence was conclusive against the petitioner so far the fairness of the counting was concerned. The Tribunal has also drawn adverse inference for non-examination of one Chandrika Yadav, one of the counting agents of the petitioner. It would be suffice to state the findings of the Tribunal itself as follows: "...... In the instant case evidence led by the petitioner warranted scrutiny of at least those two concerned ballot papers. But these evidences have been guillotined by his granting a clear chit of fairness in counting........................" Taking this view the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner of recounting. From the order of the Tribunal dated the 24th August. 1971 it is manifest that it has refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground of the two certificates, Exts. A-l and B. In very strong terms he has stated that in face of the evidence the petitioner could not claim recounting and scrutiny of the ballot papers. The mind of the Tribunal is further apparent on this issue in the main order Annexure 3, where he has said that these two certificates have, therefore, took the wind out of the tale of the election petition which is clearly an outcome of the petitioners second thought of the subject. 4. The mind of the Tribunal is further apparent on this issue in the main order Annexure 3, where he has said that these two certificates have, therefore, took the wind out of the tale of the election petition which is clearly an outcome of the petitioners second thought of the subject. 4. In my opinion the approach of the Tribunal in refusing the prayer on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was entirely erroneous. It is apparent that the petitioner has lost the election by a margin of only one vote and he had stated very specifically and unequivocally giving the details of the two ballot papers in the election petition itself and has assigned reasons for the invalidity of these two ballot papers. The Supreme Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain, AIR 1964 SC 1249 has laid down the principles for an order for inspection and has held that the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided the two conditions are fulfilled. "(i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal 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." The Supreme Court has given a caution that an order for inspection of ballot papers should not be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material facts and to establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. In the case before the Supreme Court, however, the petitioner had asked for inspection, for which he had led no oral evidence at the trial and his application for inspection was also very vague to the effect that on inspection and scrutiny of ballot papers, the allegations contained in the various paragraphs would be proved. In view of the vagueness in the case of the petitioner, the Supreme Court found that no case for inspection was made out by the petitioner. In view of the vagueness in the case of the petitioner, the Supreme Court found that no case for inspection was made out by the petitioner. In paragraph 10 of the report, the Supreme Court has further observed that a person who wants inspection of the ballot papers had to place before the Tribunal evidence prima facie indicating that an order for inspection was necessary in the interest of justice. 5 From the facts of the present case it is manifest that the foundation of the prayer for inspection and recounting was made by the petitioner since the time of the counting of the ballot papers itself and in the election petition definite facts were pleaded giving all the details of the ballot papers and the reasons for their invalidity. Before the Tribunal sufficient evidence was led in support of those allegations and in my opinion that was more than prima facie evidence for grant of the prayer. The refusal of the prayer in the circumstances would amount to shutting the material evidence upon which decision has to be given. One of the issues that was framed for decision of the Tribunal was-- "Has there been any illegality or irregularity in conducting Election and counting of votes ?". In view of the allegations and the case with which the petitioner came before the Tribunal in absence of the order for inspection and recounting of the ballot papers in question this issue as to whether any illegality or irregularity was committed by the Presiding Officer in counting of the votes, cannot be properly answered. The two certificates have been used as estoppel against the petitioner and the Court has refused to look into any other evidence on the basis of these two certificates alone. The certificates at best were for the purpose that in the counting of the ballot papers no untoward incident took place and it was fairly counted. 6. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has emphasised that it will not be desirable for this Court in writ jurisdiction to upset the decision of the Tribunal. In my opinion, the contention has got no force. 6. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has emphasised that it will not be desirable for this Court in writ jurisdiction to upset the decision of the Tribunal. In my opinion, the contention has got no force. The Tribunal has committed gross error in deciding the question which was very material for deciding the case itself and in my opinion on the facts of this case it is just and proper that the order Annexure 2 should be set aside and the prayer of the petitioner for inspection and recounting of those two ballot papers in question should be allowed. 7. The Tribunal did not allow the petitioner even any opportunity to move this Court and after deciding the question of inspection on the 24th of August, 1971 and in spite of the fact that the petitioner intimated the Tribunal that he wanted to move the higher Court against that order the Tribunal in great hurry has disposed of the election petition itself by its order dated 26th of August, 1971 (Annexure 3). 8. In my opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in the circumstances to show so much undesirable haste in disposing of this application and refusing to grant any time to the petitioner to move any higher Court. 9. In the result, I would allow this application, set aside and quash the orders dated 24th of August, 1971 and 26th of August, 1971 (Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition) and would direct the Tribunal to allow the inspection and recounting of the two ballot papers in question and thereafter dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, however, I shall make no order as to costs.