JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioner, a returned candidate, challenge the legality of orders dated 27th December 1982 and 4th July, 1984, passed by the Election Tribunal in an election petition, which is pending its consideration. 2. The petitioner was duly elected as Pradhan of a certain Gaon Sabha. Sarvasri Vijai Pal Singh and Tulsi Singh, respondents no. 4 and 5 respectively, were the other candidates in the field. The respondent no. 4 had challenged the legality of the election by means of an election petition, on 27th December, 1982, till which date the parties had not led any evidence, the Election Tribunal by an order directed the inspection of ballot papers. This order was challenged by means of a revision by the petitioner and the Revisional Court on 15th September, 1983, dismissed the revision us incompetent. However, it made certain observations to the effect that the Election Tribunal had passed the order directing an inspection of ballot papers without applying his mind to the relevant law. Thereafter, parties led oral evidence before the Election Tribunal. At the close of the evidence, an application was again made by and on behalf of the respondent no. 4 seeking the inspection of ballot papers and on that application the order dated 4th July, 1984 has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforementioned two orders on the grounds that the same were passed without any application of mind, is to be noted that the difference of votes between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 is 11. We have gone to rough both the orders. The last order is based on the earlier order. In the earlier order it is recited that the Panchat Raj officer had submitted a report to the effect that record containing the account of the number of votes cast at the election and the number of votes actually polled by the various candidates was not available. 4. What are the conditions upon which an inspection of ballot papers should be allowed has been the subject matter of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. 4. What are the conditions upon which an inspection of ballot papers should be allowed has been the subject matter of a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The latest decision of this Court is to be found in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others, 1980 UPLBEC 317 In this decision a rule Bench of this Court has reemphasised that two conditions must co-exist before an order directing an inspection of the ballot papers can be made. The second condition as laid down by this Court is that the Court of Tribunal is prima facie satisfied on the basis of the material placed before it that there is ground for believing the existence of such ground that the making of such an inspection is imperatively necessary for deciding the dispute and tor doing complete justice between the parties. In the two impugned orders, apart from the recital in the ear her order that the Panchayat Raj Officer had reported that the accounts of the ballot papers as aforementioned were not available, there is nothing to indicate that the Election Tribunal was prima facie satisfied that it was in the interest of justice that ballot papers should be inspected. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the report of the Panchay at Raj Officer constituted sufficient material so as to entitle the Election Tribunal to pass an order for the inspection of ballot papers. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has merely made a reference to the report. It has not recorded any finding on the basis of that report that it is prima facie satisfied that an inspection of the ballot papers is imperative. We are, however, making it clear that at this stage we are not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the report of the Panchayat Raj officer would by itself constitute sufficient material to enable the Tribunal to base its finding on it. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Kedar Singh v. The District Judge, Agra and others, (1983 ALJ 1183) : 1983 UPLBEC 445. This decision has been rendered by a learned Single Judge. In this case the difference of vote between the successful candidate and the defeated candidate was only one. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Kedar Singh v. The District Judge, Agra and others, (1983 ALJ 1183) : 1983 UPLBEC 445. This decision has been rendered by a learned Single Judge. In this case the difference of vote between the successful candidate and the defeated candidate was only one. In this case the order directing the inspection of ballot papers had been passed on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the party concerned. The argument was that without considering the oral evidence led by the parties such on order could not be passed. This Court emphasised that evidence may be either oral or documentary or circumstantial. This case, therefore, is not opposite. 6. The net result is that the requirements as laid down by the authorities as well as the authority of this Court in Ram Adhar Singh's (supra) remained unsatisfied in the impugned order. The orders, therefore, are liable to be quashed. Though this petition has not been formally admitted, parties have exchanged affidavit and, therefore, we are disposing of the same finally. 7. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27th December, 1982 and 4th July, 1984 passed by the Election Tribunal are quashed. The Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order after applying its mind to the material already on record and in the light of the decision of this Court as given in the case of Ram Adhar (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.