JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This petition is at the behest of a defeated candidate in reference to the office of Pradhan at village Khairpur, Bargana Sayana, Tahsil and district Bulandshahr. The issue is an election which took place in 1982. There was a tie between two candidates. The candidates were the Petitioner Bal Kishan and respondent No. 3 Dharam Singh. They got equal votes. On the basis of a lottery chance favoured the petitioner and he became the Pradhan. The votes secured by the Petitioner and the respondent No. 3 upon a tie were 182. 2. In the matter relating to a tie it is inevitable and logical that on a toss the respondent No. 3 could also have been declared elected. 3. However, the respondent No. 3 instituted an election petition, under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. In his pleadings the respondent No. 4 made an issue of the fact that 10 invalid votes had wrongly been declared valid and counted in favour of the Petitioner Bal Kishan. A preliminary issue was framed on this and the Additional Pargana, Sadar Adhikari declared that two votes were indeed invalid and counted in favour of Bal Kishan. These two votes were crucial and this made an impact in breaking the tie and thus respondents No. 3 was successful in the election petition and the election on which the petitioner elected on a lottery was aside. A recount was sought by the respondent No. 3 and the recount tipped the balance in favour of the said respondent and against the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner filed a revision against the judgment of the Additional Pargana Adhikari, aforesaid, and this was considered and decided by the II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr in revision No. 105 of 1987 Bal Kishan v. Dharam Singh and others. 5. The only submission before this Court is that there was no evidence upon which the Additional Pargana Adhikari had ordered the recount and that the learned II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, in revision, fell in the same error in affirming the order of the Pargana Adhikari aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel has cited decisions at the Bar to fortify the plea that where there is no evidence which may occasion an order for recount, recount must not be ordered. There is no quarrel with this issue as the submission on its own is correct. 6. Learned counsel has cited decisions at the Bar to fortify the plea that where there is no evidence which may occasion an order for recount, recount must not be ordered. There is no quarrel with this issue as the submission on its own is correct. But, unfortunately, learned counsel has ignored the record of the present case and the question is not that there is no evidence, as indeed there is evidence on record which led respondent No. 2, the Additional Pargana Adhikari aforesaid, to come to the conclusion and prima facie satisfaction that there were circumstances existing which occasioned a recount. In reference to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence the Court has pointed out to learned counsel that there did exist a class of votes which had double marking and the question was whether these votes ought to have been considered or not, was, in issue, in this regard it is relevant to have a hearing to paragraph 8 of the judgment of the II Additional District Judge dated, 17 August, 1987. 7. The Additional District Judge sets on record that the submission of the Petitioner that there is no evidence is misconceived. In the present case learned Additional District Judge observes :- "..........In the present case a specific ground was taken in the Petition that 10 invalid votes were counted in favour of revisionists. A issue to that effect was framed. Three witnesses mentioned above were examined in support of the allegations of the Election Petition. Kamal Singh was the agent of the Petitioner opposite party No 1. He supported the allegations of the Petition. It is after this evidence that the learned S.D.O. accepted, the request of the petitioner to summon the ballot papers and recount them. So in the present case, it cannot be held that there was no evidence in support of the Petitioner election on the issue in question. "So the aforesaid ruling does not apply to the present case. It has not been disputed that the 2 votes were found invalid and those votes were counted in favour of the revisionist by the Returning Officer. "Petitioner opposite Party No. 1 would have 2 votes more than the total number of the votes of the revisionist. "So the aforesaid ruling does not apply to the present case. It has not been disputed that the 2 votes were found invalid and those votes were counted in favour of the revisionist by the Returning Officer. "Petitioner opposite Party No. 1 would have 2 votes more than the total number of the votes of the revisionist. "In view of this finding, the learned A.S.D.O. declared the election of the revisionist void and declared the petitioner the opposite party No. 1 as duly elected Pradhan for the said Gaon Sabha." 8. This matter is, in effect, arising out of a tie in an election and upon recount even one vote being declared invalid could make a difference. The two votes which had been found invalid were excluded upon scrutiny. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the two votes in question had been illegally declared invalid. In these circumstances this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sift the evidence and accept the two invalid votes when the invalidity of the two votes has not been made an issue. 9. This writ petition is misconceived and this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order of 17 August, 1986 of the II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr to interfere under this jurisdiction. As the respondent had entered appearance upon issue of notice the Petition is dismissed with costs.