JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the SDO/PA Shahabad District Hardoi on an application for inspection of marked copy of electoral roll, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 2. It seems that in an election held on 10-4-1982 for the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Tumurki, Block Tondarpur, Pargana and Tahsil Shahabad, District Hardoi. A copy of that election petition is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Petitioner filed his written statement a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The election petition is still pending for disposal. 3. It is a common ground that no issues have so far been framed in the election petition case but the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order permitting inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll. He has also observed that if the marked copy of the electoral roll supports and confirms the allegations of the Petitioner that unauthorised persons have illegally cast the votes in the names of persons already dead on the date of polling and the persons who were posted out on election duty on the date of polling then the ballot papers may be opend and given for inspection. The application on which the said order passed was also opposed by the present Petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that the present opposite-party had filed an application seeking the same relief on an earlier occasion which was disallowed. Hence he should not be permitted to raise the matter once again by moving another application for the same relief. Further, it was said that the stage has not yet reached to allow inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the present Petitioner as also the opposite-party. 5. The contention of the Petitioner before us is that an election petition has, no doubt, been filed and is being opposed but issues have not yet been framed and the stage is not ripe for permitting anyone to make an inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll or the ballot papers. 5. The contention of the Petitioner before us is that an election petition has, no doubt, been filed and is being opposed but issues have not yet been framed and the stage is not ripe for permitting anyone to make an inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll or the ballot papers. It was also submitted that the present opposite-party has not been able to make out any case for inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll copy as well as ballot papers even at the present stage in the election petition and the allegations made in his application were vague. True it is that the present opposite-party had, on an earlier occasion, filed an application for that relief which was not allowed to him. He then filed another application and filed certain documents to substantiate his allegations that certain dead persons were, in fact, impersonated and even those persons who were on duty elsewhere votes in their names were cast and, thus, invalid votes were accepted which has affected the result of the election. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the parties it would be proper to refer to the certain provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. The election of a Pradhan can be questioned by filing a petition. Proceedings in the election petition are to be conducted in the manner laid down in the rules framed under the Act. Rule 25 contained in Chapter I-F of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules deals with the hearing of election petition. It lays down, inter alia, as under: Subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules contained in this chapter, every election petition shall be tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. For the trial of the election petition Clause (v) of Rule 25 says that Sub-Divisional Officer may allow only such evidence to be produced as he deemed relevant for the purposes of deciding the election petition. Rule 21T deals with the production and inspection of election papers. 7. For the trial of the election petition Clause (v) of Rule 25 says that Sub-Divisional Officer may allow only such evidence to be produced as he deemed relevant for the purposes of deciding the election petition. Rule 21T deals with the production and inspection of election papers. Sub-clause (1) of Rule 21T provides that: While in the custody of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, the packets of ballot papers whether valid, rejected or tendered, and of the marked copy of the electoral roll shall not be inspected by or produced before any persons or authority except under the order of a competent Court or of an authority hearing an election petition. 8. Under the provisions of this rule it is not open to any member of the public to have an inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll as of right that is required to be kept with the District Panchayat Raj Officer and it cannot be produced even before any authority except under the orders of a competent Court hearing the election petition. The marked copy of an electoral roll is, therefore, to be kept as a secret document and can be produced and inspection of it can be allowed only by a competent Court hearing an election petition and not otherwise. It was now to be seen as to what the Rule relating to marked copy of the electoral roll says. Rule 20V points out that at the time of issuing any ballot paper to an elector the Matdan Adhyaksh shall record, in such manner as the Nirvachan Nideshak (Panchayat) may direct the serial number thereof against the entry relating to the elector in a copy of the electoral roll set apart for the purpose which is called the marked copy of the electoral roll. So in the marked copy of the electoral roll serial number of the ballot paper issued to a voter is to be mentioned. The ballot paper issued to the voter is then to be dealt with in the manner provided in Rule 20UU. After the voting has been completed the marked copy of the electoral roll as well as the ballot papers are to be kept in separate packets as is enjoined by Rule 21C. They are to be kept in a sealed and secured manner. After the voting has been completed the marked copy of the electoral roll as well as the ballot papers are to be kept in separate packets as is enjoined by Rule 21C. They are to be kept in a sealed and secured manner. The present-opposite-party has sought inspection of such a marked copy of the electoral roll Obviously if inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll is permitted at this stage of the election petition, it will disclose the serial number of the ballot paper which was issued to a particular voter as well as his name. In that way secrecy of voting shall be violated. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether a case has been made out for inspection of such a marked copy of the electoral roll at this stage. In our view such a case was not made out. Written statement has, no doubt, been filed in the case. The petition is being contested. Issues have not yet been framed and oral evidence has not been recorded. Only some documents were filed on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed inspection. There is no statement on record to show that the present opposite-party as well as the present Petitioner have made statements before the Sub-Divisional Officer that they would not lead any oral evidence in support or in opposition of the application in question. There was, therefore, no justifiable ground for the Sub-Divisional Officer to allow inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll at this stage. It may also be noticed that the present opposite-party had merely asked for the inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll. He did not ask that the ballot papers in question should also be permitted to be inspected, but the Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order not only allowed inspection of the marked copy of the electoral roll but has also permitted inspection of the ballot papers on the ground that if on inspection it turns out that the allegations made by the present opposite-party are confirmed then the ballot papers should also be opened for inspection. This, in our opinion, is not permissible under law. No body can be permitted to fish out evidence in this matter. So viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 17-2-1983 cannot be sustained. 9. This, in our opinion, is not permissible under law. No body can be permitted to fish out evidence in this matter. So viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 17-2-1983 cannot be sustained. 9. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-2-1983 is quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the election petition expeditiously.