JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Aggrieved by the direction given by the Election Tribunal, for recounting and inspection of ballot papers and other allied documents and rejection of review application against order of recounting the petitioner came to this Court. Admittedly, election of Block Pramukh of Kshettra Samiti, Kudrana, district Basti, took place on 29th May, 1983. The total first preference votes cast in favour of the petitioner were 33 whereas in favour of opposite party No. 1 they were 28. However, by virtue of second preference votes counted in his favour his total also became 33. It is not disputed that in accordance with Schedule II of the Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam the person who got more first preference votes was to be declared elected. Consequently, the petitioner being recipient of 33 first preference votes was declared elected by the Returning Officer. An election petition was filed by the opposite party raising various issues including the issue that the counting of votes was not proper. It was alleged that one vote cast in his favour was rejected only because figure `1' was written slightly tilted and one first preference vote in favour of the petitioner was accepted which was written instead of `1' as letter `P'. It was also claimed that Pherai whose eye-sight was very weak was given the company of the petitioner himself. Therefore, the vote cast by Pherai should have been ignored. Other allegations were also made which are not material for deciding whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the order. Evidence was led by both parties. The Tribunal held that in view of allegations made by the petitioner and the evidence led by him he was satisfied that for reaching a correct conclusion it was necessary to direct recounting. While rejecting the review application it was further held that in absence of any specific provision in the Rules omission to mention serial number in the petition was of no consequence. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of clear allegations regarding wrong counting of votes and any evidence to establish it by cogent evidence, the Tribunal committed an error in directing the recounting. According to the learned counsel, in absence of any compelling circumstance, the Tribunal was not justified in directing that the votes should be recounted. According to the learned counsel, in absence of any compelling circumstance, the Tribunal was not justified in directing that the votes should be recounted. The learned counsel urged that since allegations made in the petition were vague and the evidence fell short of the requirement as laid down in N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, AIR 1980 SC 206 the order was liable to be quashed. The submission does not appear to have any merit. In Narayanan's case the order was set aside because recounting had been ordered in absence of any specific instance of erroneous sorting out or any clear allegation in the pleading. It was also held that evidence was of general type. On the other hand, in this case the opposite party had not only made specific allegations but had also led evidence which was examined by the Tribunal and it was held that on clear pleading of the petitioner and the evidence led it was a case of recounting. Further, copies of oral statements have been filed with writ petition. Their perusal indicates that the Tribunal did not commit any error in directing recounting. It was clearly stated by opposite party that one vote in his favour was wrongly rejected and other in favour of petitioner was wrongly counted. The petitioner on the other hand only denied these allegations. The denial is vague. In fact, from deposition of petitioner, it stands admitted that such objection was raised but it was not accepted. The argument of learned counsel that the Returning Officer having rejected the objection of opposite party in respect of the vote claimed to have been marked as `P' it could not be raised before Tribunal is stated to be rejected only. Reliance was also placed on Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 and it was urged that since the opposite party did not disclose the number of ballot papers in the petition it should be construed that the pleadings on his behalf were vague. The learned counsel urged that in case the opposite party desired to challenge the election on improper counting, then he should have noted down the number of the ballot papers and mention the same in the petition. The learned counsel urged that in case the opposite party desired to challenge the election on improper counting, then he should have noted down the number of the ballot papers and mention the same in the petition. The decision in Jitendra Bahadur Singh's case (supra) was given by the Hon. Supreme Court under Representation of the People Act which contains a specific rule 56 sub-rule (3) which provides that any ballot paper which was rejected was to be scrutinised and examined by the candidate or the agent at the time of counting. There is no such provision in the Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhin yam or Rules. 3. The learned counsel urged that in the absence of any specific ground for challenging election under the Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam the election could be set aside or recounting could have been ordered only if the Tribunal was satisfied that as a result of recounting the result of election would be materially affected. The argument appears to be academic as admittedly even if one first preference vote cast in favour of the petitioner is rejected or one vote rejected against the opposite party is counted in his favour, then the result of election shall be materially affected. 4. Learned counsel then urged that the order of Tribunal was vitiated as the oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioner was not examined. Although it does not appear to be necessary but it may be observed that parties have filed entire evidence from a perusal of which it appears that the evidence of the petitioner was one of denial. The Tribunal, therefore, in not referring to the evidence led by the petitioner did not commit any error of law. 5. In the end the learned counsel urged that the recounting should be confined only to the two votes mentioned in the order of Tribunal, Such a restricted recounting has not been approved by the Supreme Court in Km. Sharadha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant, AIR 1982 SC 1569 . 6. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.