JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This petition challenges an interlocutory order (in a pending election dispute) appointing, in the ends of justice, a Commissioner for the limited purpose of inspection. 2. The election relates to Ward No. 16, Shahada Municipal Council. The said elections were held on 25th April, 1985. The petitioner who polled 264 votes as against the first respondent's 262 votes) was declared elected by a margin of two votes. This was followed by an election petition by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the respondent') under sections 21 and 22 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent applied for inspection. By its order dated 7th September, 1985, the District Court allowed the said application. Hence this petition. 3. Now, it is not the law that inspection can never be granted. Courts discretion to permit inspection is undoubted. However, this discretion is not to be exercised lightly or as a matter of course, all the more so in an election dispute. But, conversely, if a good case is made out, inspection is then not to be refused. In the very nature of things, therefore, there can be no rigidity. All depends on the facts and circumstances varying and fluctuating from case to case. 4. The Supreme Courts in (Ram Sewak v. H.K. Kidwai)4, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1249 (at page 1252) has, in the context of inspection, made the following observations : "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 in 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 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. 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 precision supported by averments of material facts. 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 precision supported by averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection," 5. In yet another ruling, the supreme Court in the case of (Ram Surat v. Harish Chandra)2, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 701 observed thus : "Inspection of ballot papers or their counterfoils is not to be allowed as a matter of course as such an order touches upon the secrecy of the ballot. Such inspection can be allowed only if a good ground for the same is made out by the petitioner. He must adequately state all the material facts in his election petition on which he relies for such a claim. Furthermore, the Court must be satisfied that for the purpose of deciding the case and doing complete and effectual justice between the parties it is imperatively necessary to order the inspection. Inspection of the counterfoils of the ballots could not be allowed to establish a plea for which there was no adequate foundation either in the pleading or in the evidence of the petitioner. It is not permissible for the petitioner to fish out evidence under the cover of the court's orders." 6. Mr. Adik, learned Counsel for the respondent, has invited attention also to a ruling of the Karnataka High Court in (Patil Shivayya v. Kavisetti Shankarappa)3, A.I.R. 1983 Karnataka p. 79 which reads as under : "An election petitioner filed an interim application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to get on record the marked electoral rolls maintained by the Polling Officers of the polling booth in the constituency through the Returning Officer of the constituency while he was being examined as his witness with a view to prove his allegation of voting by impersonation. Held that the application should be allowed. Held that the application should be allowed. The marked electoral rolls used by the Presiding Officers of polling booths or polling stations at an election would only show whether franchise has been exercised by or in the name of the person whose name finds a place in the electoral roll. Beyond that nothing else can be known. It is not possible to know from these electoral rolls whether the persons who had cast his vote had voted for a particular candidate or symbol. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that permitting the petitioner to get the marked electoral rolls on record as evidence would be violative of the principle of the secrecy of voting." 7. In the light and context of the aforesaid pronouncements, what is the position in the present case? In paragraph 4 of the election petition, it is inter alia stated that on the date of polling voter Prakash Ramdas Patil at S.No. 570 in the voters' list was in Bombay; voter Pradip Ramdas Patil at S.No. 571 was at Pune; voter Pavra Jangibai Dwarka at S.No. 933 was not even alive; voter Shaikh Mahamad Shafi at S.No. 966 was not at all at Shahada where polling took place; voter Vijay Narottam Patil at S.No. 1052 was also not at Shahada; and that voter Pavas Ushabai Tukaram at S.No. 427 had actually voted in another ward viz. Ward No. 17. It was further stated that the petitioner herein managed to have the aforesaid voters impersonated by others who voted for them. The same were, therefore, invalid and void votes materially affecting the result of the election and but for which the respondent herein would have been declared elected. Thus, the names and particulars of each of the concerned voters have been given. This, however, is not all. With a view of substantiate his claim, the respondent also filed affidavits of some of these very persons aforesaid. Shaikh Mohammad Shafi in his sworn affidavit stated that on the date of polling he was not at Shahada, that on the previous day itself he had gone to Burhampur and from there he went to Chopda and from Chopda he went the next day 25th April, 1985 to Amailner. There is also the affidavit of the other person Pradipkumar Ramdas Patil. He is a doctor. There is also the affidavit of the other person Pradipkumar Ramdas Patil. He is a doctor. He states that on the date of polling 25th April, 1985 he was not at Shahada but was actually at Pune where he had been studying for his post-graduate diploma at the B.J. Medical College. There is also the affidavit of yet another person named above Vijay Narottam Patil inter alia to the same effect that on the date of polling he was not at all at Shahada but was at Parel, Bombay, where he has been taking medical education. There is then a certificate from a limited company Escol Electromech Limited of Bombay to the effect that Prakash Ramdas Patil (Yet another person named in paragraph 4 of the election petition) was in attendance at the aforesaid company of Bombay the whole day on 25th April, 1985. Also produced on the record is a certified extract from the death register in support of the case that voter at S.No. 933 was not even alive on the date of polling. 8. Now, in the face of the aforesaid names, dates, affidavits and certificates, can one by an stretch say that this is a case of a mere vague and ambiguous claim for inspection? It is just not possible to so hold. Indeed, as many particulars as are to be reasonably expected have been given and these particulars are not in the least vague or ambiguous but clear and specific and, what is more, supported by solemn affidavits. But its detail and reasoned order, the District Court held that it is using its discretion to a limited extent to ascertain and verify whether the particular named voters have cast their votes and whether the voter at S. No. 933 was really dead on the date of polling. Indeed, save and except inspection as permitted, there was no other or method nor any even suggested. The District Court further held that taking into account the minimal margin of two votes, it was allowing the application in the interests of justice to give full justice to both parties. If, in all such circumstances, the District Court makes, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, an order for inspection, this Court would not be justified in nevertheless interfering. If, in all such circumstances, the District Court makes, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, an order for inspection, this Court would not be justified in nevertheless interfering. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited as also discretionary and one exercised sparingly to prevent inter alia miscarriage of justice. In sum, this is not a case warranting interference. 9. It was submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the case does not fall in any of the items defining "corrupt practice" under section 22 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. In the first place, this is not the state to go into and adjudicate upon this aspect. That state is yet to come. This matter presently is only at a preliminary state. Secondly-and at this stage speaking prima facie-the election petition here is not based only on the averment of corrupt practice. There are other averments also for setting aside the election. Mr. Adik rightly refers to section 21(2)(a) and (b) of the above Act. to quote : "21(2). Any such petition (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall, with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or grounds on which the election, co-option or nomination is called in question." (Emphasis added). Thus, apart from corrupt practice, an election is liable to be set aside also on other ground or grounds. In all the circumstances, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, with a view to avoid delay and all controversy as to who should appointed Commissioner, it is, by consent, directed that instead of the work as per the impugned order being done by the Commissioner, the District Court itself should carry out and complete the same. 11. Hence Order : (a) The District Court should itself carry out and complete the work in question in pursuance of its order dated 7th September, 1985. (b) Subject to the above modification, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. 12. As this is an election petition and almost a year has already elapsed since the elections were held, the District Court should hear and decide the same expeditiously as possible. 13. Writ to go down immediately. Petition fails. -----