ORDER Om Prakash, J. - This is an application by the respondent 1 under O. VI R. 16, C.P.C., for striking out paragraphs 6 to 34 relating to grounds (A) and (B) as raised in para 4 of the election petition, inasmuch as they according to the respondent 1 are vague and do not contain material facts, as required to be disclosed by S. 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short `the Act'). 2. To elect a Member of the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 26 Hasanpur Assembly Constitutency, district Moradabad, election, which took place in the year 1985, was contested by the petitioner and the respondent 1, inter alia, and the respondent 1, who contested the election as an independent candidate, was declared elected on 6-3-1985. The petitioner, who was Congress (I) candidate, filed this election. Petition challenging the election of respondent 1 on grounds (A) and (B) as stated in para 4 of the petition. Concise statement of facts relating to ground (A) are set out in paras 6 to 29 and the concise statement of facts relating to the other ground are stated in paras 31 to 34. 3. The prayer of the petitioner is that the election of the respondent 1 from the aforesaid constituency be declared void and the petitioner himself be declared as elected from the said constituency. The ground (A) is that the election, in so far as it concerns the respondent 1, has been materially affected : (i) by improper rejection of the valid votes cast in favour of the petitioner; (ii) by improper acceptance of invalid ballot papers and counting the same as valid votes in favour of the respondent 1. (iii) by gross irregularities and mistakes committed during the course of counting of ballot papers; and (iv) by non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (briefly, the Rules, 1961). So the major ground is that whereas invalid ballot papers were counted as valid votes in favour of the respondent 1 and the valid ballot papers cast in favour of the petitioner were illegally rejected and that if recount is done, then the petitioner would emerge as a successful candidate. So the major ground is that whereas invalid ballot papers were counted as valid votes in favour of the respondent 1 and the valid ballot papers cast in favour of the petitioner were illegally rejected and that if recount is done, then the petitioner would emerge as a successful candidate. The petitioner has averred that of the total votes polled in the election, majority of votes were cast in his favour and this fact would be discovered from the recount of votes. 4. The question for consideration is as to when recounting can be ordered. Section 83(1) of the Act states that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. The contention of Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent 1, is that this section is mandatory and that if the material facts disclosing full cause of action are not stated, then the petition will have to be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action. The legal proposition as put forward by Sri Srivastava, is fully supported by the case law. In Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 , it was ruled down that S. 83 is mandatory and requires the election petition to contain first concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars. The word `material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. So the material facts are those which constitute a complete cause of action. It means that no petition will disclose a full cause of action, if it is bereft of material facts. Material facts are necessary to present a composite picture of cause of action. The absence of material facts means the absence of cause of action and in the absence of cause of action, a petition, which is governed by the provisions of C.P.C., is liable to be rejected under O. VII R. 11, C.P.C. It is from this point of view that the disclosure of the material facts, as required by S. 83(1) of the Act, becomes very important. In Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari AIR 1970 SC 276 , it was held that the material facts required to be stated are those facts which can be considered as materials supporting the allegations made. In other words, they must be such facts as to afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition. So the petition should not only contain the allegations, but complete facts supporting them and their basis must be stated. 5. Then the question is as to what will be the material facts in a petition seeking recount. This point is not res Integra, as it came up several times before the Supreme Court for decision. The consensus of all the decisions, which will be shortly referred to hereinafter, is that since an order for a recount touches upon the secrecy of the ballot, it should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. In Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai AIR 1964 SC 1249 , which is a leading case on the point of recount, their Lordships adverted to Rr. 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 63 of the Rules, 1961 and observed in para 9 as follows : "There can therefore be no doubt that at every stage in the process of scrutiny and counting of votes the candidate or his agents have an opportunity of remaining present at the counting of votes, watching the, proceedings of the returning officer, inspecting any rejected votes, and to demand a re-count. Therefore, a candidate who seeks to challenge an election on the ground that there has been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting, has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinised and opened, and the votes were counted. He has also opportunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a re-count. He has also opportunity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding a re-count. It is in the light of the provisions of S. 83(1) which require a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and to the opportunity which a defeated candidate had at the time of counting, of watching and of claiming a re- count that the application for inspection must be considered." From this authority, it is manifest that every candidate and his agents having had sufficient opportunity to watch the proceedings of counting, it must be clearly stated in the petition as to where, how, in whose presence, in which round of counting, the irregularity took place and how that irregularity was objected to at the time of counting. 6. Two years later, this rule was repeated in the case of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 . In para 8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, AIR 1970 SC 276 (supra), it was observed :- "In the instant case apart from giving certain figures whether true or imaginary, the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition. the basis on which he arrived at those figures. His bald assertion that he got those figures from the counting agents of the congress nominee cannot afford the necessary basis. He did not say in the petition who those workers were and what is the basis of their information. It is not his case that they maintainedany notes or that he examined their notes, if there were any." Further it was observed in para 10 : "Now coming to the rejection of the votes polled in favour of the congress nominee, under the rules before a vote is rejected the agents of the candidates must be permitted to examine the concerned ballot paper. Therefore, it was quite easy for them to note down the serial number of the concerned ballot papers. The election petition is silent as to the inspection of the ballot papers or whether the counting agents had noted down the serial numbers of those ballot papers or whether those agents raised any objection relating to the validity of those ballot papers; if so, who those agents are and what are the serial numbers of the ballot papers to which each one of them advanced their objections. These again are the material facts required to be stated". Then comes the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, AIR 1975 SC 2117 . In this case, the Supreme Court heard the appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court. Sample inspection of the ballot papers was allowed by the learned Judge, whom the petition was assigned for trial. The order allowing sample inspection was appealed against and then their Lordships adverting to the aforementioned decisions observed in para 17 that the case was not, at all, fit to allow ample inspection. While giving reasons it was said : "In the first place although the counting agents of the respondent were present at the time when the votes were counted no application, for a recount was made under R. 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The nature of the allegations made by the respondent in his petition as alluded to above was such as could have been easily verified at the spot by the Returning Officer, if his attention was drawn to those facts by an application made under R. 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Secondly, the learned Judge overlooked that the respondent had not given the material particulars of the facts on the basis of which he wanted an order for sample inspection of ballot papers. No serial number of the ballot papers was mentioned in the petition nor were any particulars of the bundles containing the ballot papers which were alleged to have been wrongly rejected given by the respondent. Even the segment in which the irregularity had occurred was not mentioned in the petition". 7. Lastly, reference may be made to the case : N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, AIR 1980 SC 206 , in which the Supreme Court held that the relief of recounting cannot be accepted merely on the possibility of there being an error. 8. Even the segment in which the irregularity had occurred was not mentioned in the petition". 7. Lastly, reference may be made to the case : N. Narayanan v. S. Semmalai, AIR 1980 SC 206 , in which the Supreme Court held that the relief of recounting cannot be accepted merely on the possibility of there being an error. 8. Applying the principles laid down in the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, it may be unhesitatingly stated that in a case demanding recounting, the petitioner must not only give the figures of the votes, which according to him were improperly accepted or rejected, but the basis of the allegation must be disclosed, the serial number of the ballot papers must be set out, names of the counting agent, number of the counting tables, names of the Counting Supervisor, round number, details of objection, if any, made to the counting staff, details of the notes, if any, kept by the counting agent and the basis of information must be disclosed. All these constitute material facts and their disclosure is essential to give a composite picture of cause of action and if a material fact is missing, then there will be no adequate cause of action to maintain the petition and the petition would have to be rejected for want of cause of action under O. VII R. 11, C.P.C. besides other provisions. 9. Broadly the facts, as set out in paras 6 to 29 are: (a) That ballot papers containing clear voting seal marks in the column of the petitioner were improperly rejected on the ground that they were blank and did not bear any seal mark; (b) that ballot papers in which seal mark in the column of the petitioner was clearly protruded, were rejected saying that no seal mark was there; (c) that ballot papers in which the seal mark was smudged were rejected on the ground that they contained votes for two candidates, (d) that ballot papers not bearing the mark of the prescribed seal, but the mark made by a piece of wood were accepted in favour of the respondent 1; and (e) that spurious ballot papers not having polling station seal mark or the signature of the Presiding Officer, were used. 10. 10. The petitioner has not disclosed the names of the counting agents, the number of counting tables, number of the round, serial number of ballot papers improperly accepted or rejected, names of the counting supervisor; has not given any details of the objections. If any made to the counting staff, the details of the note kept, if any, by the counting agents and has not disclosed the basis of the figures of the ballot papers improperly accepted or rejected, as mentioned in column 3 of the tables, set out in paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 24 of the petition. 11. In para 18 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner's election agent Sri Subhash Bhushan Sharma moved an application before the Returning Officer for seeking permission to note down the serial number of the ballot papers, which did not contain any voting mark by the prescribed seal. Similar explanation for not disclosing the serial number of the spurious- ballot papers was made in para 23 of the petition. These paragraphs do not contain the material facts, inasmuch as, the petitioner has failed to state in para 18 as to why the counting agent failed to note down the serial number and why the request had to be made by the election agent. The round number when the request was made and the names of the persons in whose presence the request was made have not been stated. In para 23, the name of the counting agent has not been stated. The nature of request, whether it was made orally or in writing, has not been stated in para 23 of the petition. Pointing of time of request has not been mentioned either in para 18 or para 23. It is to be importantly noted that no such explanation has been given in regard to the remaining ballot papers, serial number of which has not been stated. 12. In ground (B) and in the paragraphs of facts relating thereto, the petitioner has simply made a claim of having received majority of votes of the total polled votes. In absence of the material facts, the paras 31 and 32 appear to be merely conjectural and no serious comments are needed on them. 13. 12. In ground (B) and in the paragraphs of facts relating thereto, the petitioner has simply made a claim of having received majority of votes of the total polled votes. In absence of the material facts, the paras 31 and 32 appear to be merely conjectural and no serious comments are needed on them. 13. For the reasons, I hold that both the grounds (A) and (B) and the paragraphs of facts 6 to 34 relating thereto are liable to be struck out, as they do not contain material facts and are frivolous, vexatious and scandalous. 14. Sri Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the name of the counting agent, name of counting supervisor, serial number of ballot papers, number of round, number of counting table, time, place, date, details of objections made to and of the notes kept by the counting agent are merely `particulars' which can be incorporated in the petition either by way of amendment or furnished in evidence. This contention has to be rejected straightway in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court. In addition to those decisions, reference may be made to a few more decisions of the Supreme Court, which clearly point out that time, place and date also constitute material facts. In Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 515 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the charge of corrupt practice under S. 123(7) of the Act observed : "An election petition which merely alleged corrupt practice against successful candidate of obtaining and procuring or attempting to obtain and procure the assistance of certain named Government Servants for the furtherance of the prospects of his election by writing letters under his own signature without giving the material facts and the necessary particulars as to the nature of the assistance, the time and place where it was sought from each of the persons mentioned does not furnish any cause of action and it is no election petition in the eye of law". In Daulat Ram v. Anand Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 621 , it was emphasised in para 18 that in order to constitute corrupt practice, the petition must contain necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients. In Daulat Ram v. Anand Sharma, AIR 1984 SC 621 , it was emphasised in para 18 that in order to constitute corrupt practice, the petition must contain necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients. While formulating the ingredients the Supreme Court reiterated that the details of every important particular must be stated giving the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expression etc. No doubt, the rule was laid down in connection with the corrupt practice, but it will equally apply to other pleadings as well. The latest decision of the Supreme Court in this behalf is in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 All LJ 625 : AIR 1986 SC 1253 . Reiterating the rule laid down the case of Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 515 (supra) it is stated towards the end of para 14 that the petitioner must state with exactness the time of assistance, the manner of assistance, the persons from whom assistance was obtained or procured, the time and date of the same, all these will have to be set out in the particulars. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the submission of Sri Tripathi that time, place, date, name etc. are merely a matter of evidence being particulars and they do not constitute material facts. To give a full cause of action, these facts must be stated and they are integral part of cause of action. 15. To support the argument that it is not essential to disclose serial number of ballot papers. Sri Tripathi relied on Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohammad Furkan Ansari, AIR 1983 SC 1311 . This case is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as their Lordships clearly recorded a finding of fact that the particulars of the rejected ballot papers could not be available to the counting agents and, therefore, the particulars, namely, the number of the ballot papers could not be given in the election petition. The principle that the serial number of ballot papers constituted `material fact' and that must be disclosed in a petition, unless cogent reasons are there for not doing so, was not reversed in that case and, therefore, it does not support the contention of Sri Tripathi. 16. Sri Tripathi then relied upon Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2158 . 16. Sri Tripathi then relied upon Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2158 . Referring to O. VI R. 2 C.P.C., their Lordships observed : "The earlier part of the Rule, it would be noticed, is similar to clause (1)(a) of S. 83. The Code of Civil Procedure applies to all trial of election petition and to require that a party should not only state the material facts on which he relies, which the respondent had done more than amply in this case, but also that he should state the evidence on which he relies is not a proposition which can be accepted either as correct in law or as one which justice requires." This authority was referred to in the case of Bhabi, AIR 1975 SC 2117 (supra) and was distinguished in para 14 as under : "Lastly in Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 502 the Court upheld the order of the High Court allowing inspection of ballot papers because the High Court had given a finding that the evidence of the witnesses was sufficient to prove the allegation of impersonation in that case. The Court further held that the High Court did not act arbitrarily in granting the prayer for inspection." 17. One of the allegations in para 25 of the petition is that larger number of ballot papers were shown to have been issued to the electors at several polling stations on the date of poll, but lesser number of ballot papers were found in the ballot box on the date of counting. The inference of the petitioner is that these ballot papers were cast by agent and workers of the respondent 1 in his favour at some other polling stations. The serial number of ballot papers, which were found short, has not been stated, the names of agents and workers, who used such ballot papers in favour of the respondent 1, have not been disclosed and the details, of other polling stations where they were allegedly cast for the respondent 1 have not been set out. The inference drawn by the petitioner from the short recovery of the ballot papers is not the only inference, as appears from the case of D. P. Sharma v. Commr. The inference drawn by the petitioner from the short recovery of the ballot papers is not the only inference, as appears from the case of D. P. Sharma v. Commr. and Returning Officer AIR 1984 S.C. 654 , in which his Lordship Tulzapurkar speaking for the Bench observed : "The discrepancy as regards finding of less ballot papers from the ballot boxes than that had been issued and used by the voters is easily understandable, for it is quite conceivable that some voters, who had got ballot papers issued to them, might have walked out of the polling booths without casting them in the ballot boxes and such discrepancy. .......................... If the petitioner wanted to draw the inference that the ballot papers not recovered from the ballot boxes might have been used for the respondent 1 at some other polling stations, then more material facts should have been stated by him. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the application under O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. is allowed and the grounds `A' and `B' and the paras 6 to 29 relating to ground `B' are struck out as they do not disclose material facts and cause of action. Consequently, the election petition is rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., read with O. VI, R. 16, C.P.C. and S.83(1) of the Act. The respondent 1 is entitled to costs, which I assess at Rs. 500/-. The balance of the security amount will be refunded the petitioner on presenting a proper application.