Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both the counsel and considering the nature of the controversy involved in the revision, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal today. 2. The petitioner is the first respondent in the election petition E.O.P. No. 2 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif (Election Court), Kangayam. The respondent is the petitioner in that election petition. The respondent challenges the election of the petitioner for the office of the President of Nathakadaiyur Panchayat. The grievance of the respondent stands expressed in the following terms in the election petition preferred by him as per copy enclosed in the typed set filed along with the revision: “4. The petitioner himself was present at the time of counting. The petitioner submits that the entire procedure adopted in counting the votes was irregular, illegal and void. The counting table was allowed to be surrounded by number of persons, i.e., the respondents, their agents and supervisors and thereby the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to see the votes at the lime of counting. The valid votes counted, and the votes rejected were not properly shown to the petitioner. Good number of votes, that were cast in favour of the petitioner were rejected improperly and on flimsy grounds. The officer-in-charge of the counting did not heed to the various objections raised by the petitioner, then and there at the time of counting. At the time of counting due to above mentioned irregularities and confusion, one bundle containing 50 valid votes, cast in favour of petitioner was not taken into account while total votes were counted for the respective candidates. The petitioners prayer for recounting was discountenanced. The petitioners request for a copy of the counting list was also not complied with. Ultimately the fifth respondent declared the first respondent secured 1115 votes and the petitioner secured 1090 votes and declared on 25th February, 1986 the first respondent as the successful candidate for the post of President of Nathakadaiyur Panchayat. This declaration is null and void and it has to be set aside for the reasons stated supra. Therefore this petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the election of the first respondent as the President of Nathakadaiyur Panchayat. The respondents 2 to 4 and 6 are added as necessary parties to this petition.” These allegations are being refuted by the petitioner in his counter-statement. Therefore this petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the election of the first respondent as the President of Nathakadaiyur Panchayat. The respondents 2 to 4 and 6 are added as necessary parties to this petition.” These allegations are being refuted by the petitioner in his counter-statement. The respondent also took out I.A. No. 10 of 1986 to recount the votes. 3. The District Munsif (Election Court), Kangayam, has ordered this petition in the following terms: “Enquiry Heard, Returning officer is directed to produce all ballot papers on 9th September, 1986 for counting. Further hearing on 10th September, 1986.” (18-8-86). “Ballot paper bundles brought today by Returning officer. Counsel for both sides present. As G.P. has already filed a petition for adjournment, it is adjourned to 16th September, 1986. Returning Officer is directed to take back ballot paper and to produce on 16th September 1986.” (9-9-1986) 4. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election petition itself has not been taken up for final disposal and without setting out any reason for ordering recounting, the District Munsif (Election Court) has ordered the petition for recounting as a matter of course and this is impermissible. He places reliance on two pronouncements of the Supreme Court. One is found in Chanda Singh v. Shiv Ramvarma 1, and the Head Note (A) itself is sufficient for a proper appreciation of the principles countenanced and the said Head Note stands extracted as follows: “Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 obligates the candidate to state ‘the grounds on which he demands such recount’. It is plain that a mere doubt or small lead or unspecified blemish in the manner of the counting falls short of the needs of the said rule. Under the rule the demand for recount may be rejected if it appears to the Returning Officer to be frivolous or unreasonable. What is not reasonably grounded or seriously supported is unreasonable or frivolous. Suspicions of possible mischief in the process or likely errors in counting always linger in the mind of the defeated candidate when he is shocked by an unexpected result. The Returning Officer has to be careful, objective and sensitive in assessing the legitimacy of the plea for running the course of counting. Suspicions of possible mischief in the process or likely errors in counting always linger in the mind of the defeated candidate when he is shocked by an unexpected result. The Returning Officer has to be careful, objective and sensitive in assessing the legitimacy of the plea for running the course of counting. Victory by a very few votes may certainly be a ground to fear unwitting error in court given other circumstances tending that way. If the counting of the ballots are interfered with by too frequent and flippant recounts by courts a new threat to the certainty of the poll system is introduced through the judicial instrument. Moreover, the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct becomes exposed to deleterious paying if recount of votes is made easy. The best surmise, it be nothing more than surmise, cannot and shout not induce the judge to break open ballot boxes. If the lead is relatively little and/or other legal infirmities or factual flaws power around, recount is proper, not otherwise. In short, where the difference is microscopic, the stage is set for a recount given some plus of clear suspicion or legal lacuna militating against the regularity, accuracy, impartiality or objectivity bearing on the original counting. Of course, even if the difference be more than microscopic, if there is a serious flaw or travesty of the rules or gross interference, a liberal repeat or recount exercise, to check on possible mistake is a vain exercise of power. To tarnish the counting staff with bias is easy for any party who divorces means from ends. When the challenger belongs to the party in power a heavy strain is thrown on the strength of the moral fibre of the election staff whose fearless integrity is a guarantee of purity of the whole process but whose fortunes, before and after elections, may be cast with a political government whose key men may sometimes take disturbingly keen interest in the outcome of elections and election petitions. The Court should be reluctant to lend quick credence to the mud of partiality slung at counting officials by desperate and defeated candidates although what is more important is the survival of the very democratic institutions on which our way of life depends.” 5. The Court should be reluctant to lend quick credence to the mud of partiality slung at counting officials by desperate and defeated candidates although what is more important is the survival of the very democratic institutions on which our way of life depends.” 5. The second pronouncement is reported in Ram Sewak Yadav v. H.K. Kidwai 2, and even on the question of inspection, this is what the Supreme Court has countenanced: “An order for inspection may not be granted as a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified is granting an order for inspection provided 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.” 6. In the present case, the District Munsif (Election Court) has not even taken up the election petition for final hearing to test the case set out therein and no evidence has been placed by the parties one way or the other on their respective contentions and yet, as could be seen from the extracts of the orders made by the District Munsif (Election Court), he has ordered recounting as a matter of course without assigning any reasons therefor and obviously without applying his mind to the respective contentions of the parties. The respondent has thrown very many allegations with regard to counting as we could see from the extract of the election petition made above. No evidence has been placed by him even to give a prima facie satisfaction that there is a warrant for ordering recounting. Worst of all, the District Munsif (Election Court) has not advanced any ground for ordering recounting, if we take note of the principles as countenanced by the Supreme Court in the pronouncements referred to above, I am not able to appreciate and sustain the orders passed by the District Munsif (Election Court. Worst of all, the District Munsif (Election Court) has not advanced any ground for ordering recounting, if we take note of the principles as countenanced by the Supreme Court in the pronouncements referred to above, I am not able to appreciate and sustain the orders passed by the District Munsif (Election Court. It is better that the District Munsif (Election Court) takes up the election petition itself for final hearing and the parties place the appropriate evidence from their respective stands and if he still finds a warrant for ordering recounting, he can certainly do so, of course, keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above pronouncements. 7. In this view, this revision is allowed. No Costs. The District Munsif (Election Court) is directed to take up the election petition itself with expedition and dispose it of within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.