JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh questions the validity of the order/judgment of the District Judge Ghazipur dated 5-9-1983 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby he allowed the revision application filed by Bechu Ram (Respondent No. 21 and directed that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghazipur, dated 30-4-1983 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) be set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 11-4-1982 Bechu Ram, Respondent No. 2, was declared elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Sakia, District Ghazipur. Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh, one of the candidates, who contested the said election, filed an election petition u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 15-4-1982 and questioned the election of Bechu Ram inter-alia on the ground that there had been improper counting of votes and claimed that after correctly counting the votes be should be declared to have been duly elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Bechu Ram contested the petition and filed a written statement (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) refuting various allegations made in i he election petition and asserting that the counting of votes had been done in the presence of Petitioner and his election agent strictly in accordance with the rules. On 29-4-1982 the Petitioner made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer Ghazipur end prayed that in the interest of justice all papers including the sealed ballot papers in connection with the said election be summoned and after inspecting the same a memorandum be prepared. The Sub-Divisional Officer made an order dated 11-5-1982 summoning the documents mentioned in the aforesaid application. Bechu Ram then filed an application on 22-5-1982 objecting to the summoning of the election record and prayed that the order dated 11-5-1982 be recalled. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 27-5-1982, rejected the prayer made by Bechu Ram and thereafter fixed 2-8-1982 as the date for recounting of votes. Bechu Ram then filed an application on 22-5-1982 objecting to the summoning of the election record and prayed that the order dated 11-5-1982 be recalled. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide his order dated 27-5-1982, rejected the prayer made by Bechu Ram and thereafter fixed 2-8-1982 as the date for recounting of votes. The votes were accordingly recounted on 2-8-1982 in the presence of counsel for the parties and a memorandum with regard to valid and invalid votes was prepared which showed that whereas Bechu Ram election symbol-pen and inkpot) had secured only 331 valid votes as against 380 votes shown by the election officer and that Ram Adhar Singh (election symbol-tractor) had secured the highest number of valid votes, i.e. 366 as against 363 votes shown by the Election Officer It was only after the votes had been recounted as aforesaid that the parties subsequently led oral evidence in the case on 22-9-1982. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer relying upon the memorandum prepared by him, after inspection and recounting of votes on 22-8-19882, held that the Returning Officer had not counted the votes correctly and that Ram Adhar Singh, who had pelled the highest number of votes, was entitled to the declaration that he had been elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha It was contended before the Sub-Divisional Officer that before 2-8-1982 there was absolutely no material before him which could justify a direction for inspection of the ballot papers and recounting of votes and as such he should not in deciding the election petition, take the memorandum prepared by him on that date into consideration In this connection the Sub-Divisional Officer noticed the observations made in the cases of Kali Prasad v. Prescribed Authority (SDO) Pratapgarh 1980 ALJ 378, The Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Indore Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd., Birlagram, Nagda, (1975) 2 SCC 721 , and Parashu Ram Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Ballia. 1980 AWC 137 and observed that he had, in the light of aforementioned decisions, ample jurisdiction to direct recounting of votes as he was satisfied in this regard on the basis of the pleadings contained in the election petition. We, however, repelled all other pleas raised by Ram Adhar Singh for questioning the validity of Bechu Ram's election. 1980 AWC 137 and observed that he had, in the light of aforementioned decisions, ample jurisdiction to direct recounting of votes as he was satisfied in this regard on the basis of the pleadings contained in the election petition. We, however, repelled all other pleas raised by Ram Adhar Singh for questioning the validity of Bechu Ram's election. In the result, he, vide his order dated 30-4-1983, allowed the election petition and after setting aside the election of Bechu Ram declared that Ram Adhar Singh had been duly elected as Pradhan of the Qaon Sabha. 4. Aggrieved, Bechu Ram applied to the District Judge for revision of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had acted illegally in directing the inspection and recount of votes on 2-8-1982 and in setting aside the election on the basis of the memorandum prepared in pursuance of such inspection and recount. It was contended before the learned District Judge that the pleading of Ram Adhar Singh, with regard to wrong counting of votes, was absolutely vague. No specific matter of improper counting was averred in the petition. Not only this, no evidence whatsoever, had been led even to prima facie support the case of improper counting of votes and as such on the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kali Prasad v. Prestribed Authority 1980 ALJ 378 and Labhchand Dhanpat Singh Jain Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 182 , the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to direct recounting of votes and the decision taken by him on the basis of illegal recounting was liable to be set aside. This plea prevailed with the District Judge who held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to direct the recount on 2-8-1982 and inasmuch as his judgment and order were solely based on the result of the recount, and same could not be upheld. In the result, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30-4-1983. 5. Ram Adhar Singh then filed the present writ petition before this Court and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the result, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30-4-1983. 5. Ram Adhar Singh then filed the present writ petition before this Court and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge before whom the petition came up for hearing, held that the impugned order of the learned District Judge was based on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kali Prasad v. Prescribed Authority 1980 ALJ 378 which in its turn drew inspiration from a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in connection with the provisions contained in the Representation of Peoples Act. He pointed out that whereas u/s 83 of the Representation of People Act an election petition is to contain a concise statement of material facts, u/s 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act is merely required to contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on one of the grounds mentioned therein. u/s 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Prescribed Authority is required to record only summary of evidence. He, therefore, thought that construction of Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, in the light of the Supreme Court decisions under the Representation of Peoples Act, may not be apt and that it may be possible to hold that u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer directing recounting of votes will not stand vitiated merely because the Petitioner had not given details as required under the Representation of Peoples Act. In the result, he directed that the case may be laid before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for placing it before a larger Bench and this is how the matter has come up before us. 6. As is evident from its preamble the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act has been enacted with a view to establish and develop Local Self Government in rural areas, and to make better provision for village administration in the State. Various provisions contained in the Act clearly spell out the legislative intention that such local Government and village administration are to be carried on for the benefit of rural populous by their representatives elected on the basis of adult franchise. Various provisions contained in the Act clearly spell out the legislative intention that such local Government and village administration are to be carried on for the benefit of rural populous by their representatives elected on the basis of adult franchise. In order to ensure that such franchise is exercised fairly and freely, Section 12-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, like the provisions contained in the Representation of Peoples Act which deal with election to Parliament and State Legislature, stipulates that the election to the office of the Pradhan or Up Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or a member of the Gram Panchayat shall be held by secret ballot in the manner prescribed. 7. Section 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides that election of a person as Pradhan etc., shall not be called in question except by means of an application in the manner prescribed and on the grounds specified therein. Rule 24(1) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, lays down that an application filed u/s 12-C of the Act, questioning the election of a Pradhan, must specify the grounds on which the election of the Respondent is questioned as also a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds. The Rules framed under the Act also concern themselves with the procedure and inspection of ballot papers. In this regard Rule 21-T(1) provides that while in custody of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, the pockets of ballot papers whether valid, rejected or tendered and the marked copy of the electoral roll shall not be inspected by or produced before any person or authority except under orders of a competent court or of an authority hearing an election petition. Whereas Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21-T lays down that copies of election return forwarded by the Nirvachan Adhikari under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 21-T shall be furnished by the District Panchayat Raj Officer on payment of a fee of Rs. 2/- for each copy, Sub-rule (3) lays down that all other papers relating to the election, that is, those covered under Rule 21{1) and (2) shall be open to public inspection. This rule makes a clear distinction between the ballot papers and marked copy of the electoral roll on the one hand and other papers relating to election of Pradhan etc. on the other. This rule makes a clear distinction between the ballot papers and marked copy of the electoral roll on the one hand and other papers relating to election of Pradhan etc. on the other. Whereas ballot papers and marked copy of the electoral roll can be inspected only under the orders of a competent court or that of the authority hearing the election petition, all other documents are, subject to certain conditions, open to inspection by any party. This distinction on the inspection of ballot papers and marked copy of the electoral roll is clearly directed towards securing secrecy of ballot. 8. As already stated, Rule 24 makes it obligatory on a person questioning, by means of an application u/s 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the election of a Pradhan, to specify not only the grounds on which the Petitioner seeks to challenge the election but also a summary of circumstances which provide a justification for questioning the election on such ground. Where an application for questioning the election has been presented before a competent authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 24, the authority undoubtedly gets, in appropriate cases and where the interest of justice so requires, a jurisdiction to permit inspection of ballot papers and marked copy of electoral roll. As a matter of fact such power is implicit in Rule 24-T, but in the context such power has necessarily to be exercised keeping in view the statutory provisions relating to secrecy of ballot, contained iii Section 12-A of the Act and having regard to the insistence on secrecy of ballot, it would not be apt for the concerned authority either to look into or to permit inspection of ballot papers, as of course. 9. A perusal of the corresponding provisions contained in the Representation of Peoples Act and the Rules framed thereunder which too are directed towards securing fee and fair exercise of franchise in relation to Parliamentary and Assembly election by secret ballot, reveals that like the provisions contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Section 80 of the Representation of Peoples Act provides that no election under that Act shall be called in question except by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI. Section 83(1) thereafter states what an election petition should contain. Section 83(1) thereafter states what an election petition should contain. It, inter alia provides that an election petition shall contain concise statement of the material facts on which the Petitioner relies. Section 90(1) lays down the procedure for the trial of an election petition. Section 92 enumerates the powers which a Tribunal trying an election petition may exercise Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the Representation of the Peoples Act, lays down that: (1) while in the custody of the returning officer- (a) the packets of unused ballot papers; (b) the packets of unused ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected; (c) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be the list maintained under sub Section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 152; and (d) the packets of the declaration by electors and the attestation of their signatures; shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before any person or authority except under the order of a competent court oi tribunal. (2) all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection subject to such conditions and to the payment of such fee, if any, as the Election Commission may direct. (3) Copies of the returns by the returning officer for warded under Rule 64 or as the case may be under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 84 shall be furnished by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State concerned on payment of a fee of two rupees for each such copy. 10. This rule too makes a clear distinction between ballot papers and other election papers; ballot papers may be inspected only under the order of a competent court or tribunal, but other documents are subject to certain conditions, open to public inspection. 11. A comparison of the two sets of provisions contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and those of the Representation of the Peoples Act and the Rules framed thereunder in that regard, shows that they are almost identical to each other and it would not be wrong to infer that the discretion of the authority dealing with the election petition under the two enactments for looking into and in directing inspection of ballot papers should be governed by the same principles. 12. 12. In the case of Ram Sewak Yudav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai AIR 1964 SC 1249 , the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar question arising under the Representation of the People Act held that before an authority or court dealing with an election petition is not to look into or direct inspection of ballot papers unless following two conditions co-exist: (i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the Petitioner relied in support of his case (the petition meets the requirement of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of the election petition), 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. 13. In this connection, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court went on to observe thus: But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot 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 provision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interest of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the Petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an Jim proper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection. 14. In the case of Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 687 , the Supreme Court approved the principles for inspection of ballot papers laid down in Ram Sewak's case (supra) and after noticing its decisions in the cases of Dr. Jagjit Singh Vs. Giani Kartar Singh and Others, AIR 1966 SC 773 , Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Shri Kirshna Behari and Others, (1969) 2 SCC 433 , Shashi Bhushan Vs. Prof. Balraj Madhok and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 594 , Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. Shri Sheo Shanker Prasad Yadav and Others, (1973) 3 SCC 330 , Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi AIR SC 283, S. Baldev Singh Vs. Teja Singh Swatantar (Dead) and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 406 , and Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs. Prof. Balraj Madhok and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 594 , Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. Shri Sheo Shanker Prasad Yadav and Others, (1973) 3 SCC 330 , Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi AIR SC 283, S. Baldev Singh Vs. Teja Singh Swatantar (Dead) and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 406 , and Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs. Jai Prakash Mishra and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 822 , the Court observed thus: Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers; (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satis action of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a re-count, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials. 15. The principles laid down in Bhabhi's case (supra) have again been applied and followed by that Court in the case of R. Narayanan Vs. 15. The principles laid down in Bhabhi's case (supra) have again been applied and followed by that Court in the case of R. Narayanan Vs. S. Semmalai and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 537 , wherein it observed thus: Finally, the entire case law on the subject regarding the circumstances under which recount could be ordered was fully summarised and catelogued by this Court in the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind 1975 SCR 202 to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party and which may be extracted thus: The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where; (1) the election petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting, and (3) The court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. 16. This Court has consistently applied aforementioned principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, for looking into and permitting inspection of ballot papers in cases arising under the Representation of the Peoples Act, to similar cases arising under the U.P. Panchyayat Raj Act as well. See Dhanai Prasad v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur 1974 ALJ 371, Charon Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer 1974 ALJ 748, Kali Prasad v. Prescribed Authority (SDO), Pratapgarh 1980 ALJ 378 and Mohammad Husain v. S.D.O. Shahabad 1983 AWC 430. 17. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that whereas Section 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act requires that the election petition presented under that Act must give out a concise statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies, the requirement under Rub 24 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Kaj Act, in this regard is that the election petition presented u/s 12-C of the Act is merely to contain the grounds together with the summary of circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds. He urged that there is a substantial difference between requiring a Petitioner to make a concise statement of material facts on which he seeks to rely and in requiring a person to specify in the petition the summary of circumstances providing a justification for questioning the election on a particular ground. Moreover, Section 12-C(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act countenances framing of a rule permitting summary hearing and disposal of an election petition u/s 12-C(1) of the Act, the State Government has, vide Clause (2) of proviso (1) to Rule 25(1) stipulated that it shall not be necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer, (the authority competent to deal with an election petition u/s 12-C of the Act) to record the evidence in full and that he may maintain only a memorandum of evidence produced by the parties before him. This, according to the learned Counsel, indicates that the requirement in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act with regard to contents of an election petition and the procedure for its trial is very much less formal and stringent than the corresponding provision concerning pleadings and procedure for trial of an election petition under the Representation of the Peoples Act, He, therefore, contends that it would, under the circumstances, not be apt to fetter the discretion of an authority hearing an election petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act with regard to perusal and inspection of ballot papers by the same strict conditions for the purpose laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to cases arising under the Representation of the People Act. 18. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel. As already explained the Supreme Court has, in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act, spelt out the condition that all the courts dealing with an election petition should not exercise its discretion to permit inspection of ballot papers unless the petition contains an adequate statement of material facts on which the Petitioner relies in support of his case (viz. that the petition meets the requirements of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of an election petition) for the reason that under the Act, it is a matter of utmost importance to maintain the secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and which should not be lightly allowed to be violated on vague and indefinite allegations. that the petition meets the requirements of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of an election petition) for the reason that under the Act, it is a matter of utmost importance to maintain the secrecy of ballot which is sacrosanct and which should not be lightly allowed to be violated on vague and indefinite allegations. This reason applies equally to an election held under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which too cherishes secrecy of ballot to the same extent. Viewed from this angle, it becomes evident that the amplitude and purpose of the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act that the election petition must contain a concise statements of material facts on which the Petitioner relies and that of Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to the effect that an application u/s 12-C(1) of the Act must specify the grounds on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned as also a summary of circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such grounds, is the same, viz. that the court or the authority dealing with an election petition under the respective enactments, should not countenance or proceed to investigate into any ground taken in the election petition unless the ground as well as the material in support of such ground have been adequately disclosed in the petition. Neither of the two enactments countenances the court or the authority to permit the election Petitioner to make or indulge into making of a roving enquiry with a view to fish out material for declaring an election void; and it is this weighty factor which impels the court or the authority not to look into or permit inspection of ballot papers unless the foundation for the purpose has been properly laid in the petition by specifying the ground and the material or the circumstances in support of such ground. Viewed in this light, the provisions contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules permitting the summary hearing of an application u/s 12-C(1) of the Act and authorising the Sub-Divisional Officer to, instead of recording evidence in full, merely maintain a memorandum thereof, has no bearing on the question regarding circumstances in which the ballot papers can either be looked into or permitted to be inspected in proceedings u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 19. Applying the principle with regard to inspection of ballot papers enunciated by the Supreme Court in cases arising under the Representation of the People Act to an election petition dealt with under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, there is no escape from the conclusion that before an authority hearing the election petition under the said Act can be permitted to look into or to direct inspection of the ballot papers, following two conditions must co-exist: (1) that the petition for setting aside an election contains the grounds on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned as also the summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground; and (2) the authority is, prima facie, satisfied on the basis of the materials produced before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground and that making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and for doing complete justice between the parties. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of any specification with regard to the ground on which the election of the Respondent is being questioned together with summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on I such ground, it is not open to the authority dealing with an application u/s 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, either to look into or direct inspection of ballot papers merely on the ground that it feels that it would be in the interest of justice to look into or permit inspection of the ballot papers. In the context, such satisfaction has necessarily to be based on specific averments made in and the materials indicated in the election petition which could, prima facie, satisfy the authority about the existence of the ground on which the election is sought, to be questioned. 20. Coming now to the case in hand, we find that in the election petition filed by him (Annexure T to the writ petition), Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh questioned the election of Bechu Ram inter alia, on the ground that there had been an error in counting of votes. 20. Coming now to the case in hand, we find that in the election petition filed by him (Annexure T to the writ petition), Petitioner Ram Adhar Singh questioned the election of Bechu Ram inter alia, on the ground that there had been an error in counting of votes. Apart from making bald assertion of this fact in paragraphs 2' and 5' of the petition, the Petitioner did not indicate, in his petition, any circumstance or material which could lead to an inference that there had been wrong counting of votes. Such vague and indefinite allegation could, therefore, not provide any basis for the Sub-Divisional Officer to make the order in pursuance of which the votes polled at the election were recounted on 2nd of August, 1982. It is not disputed that the only material available to the Sub-Divisional Officer uptill that date was the mere bald allegation made by the Petitioner about wrong counting in the election petition. It was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to direct recounting of votes merely on the basis of such allegation and to justify his wrong action by subsequently mentioning in the order that he believed what was stated in the election petition find, therefore, he directed recounting of votes. 21. Inasmuch as the election petition did not specify any summary of circumstances to justify the election being questioned on the ground of wrong counting of votes, it was not open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to go into this question. Accordingly any decision taken by him as a result of wrong order made by him cannot be sustained. 22. In the result, the petition fails and be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.