JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - The present petition is directed against an order dated 1671988 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Salon, District RaeBareli, directing for recounting of votes. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as a Pradhan of village Mahanandpur, Block Chhatoh, Pargana Parsadepur, Tahsil Salon, District RaeBareli on 171988. The respondent No. 2, who was also a candidate, filed an Election Petition under Section 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on 671988. There was no application filed by the respondent No. 2, for recounting of votes but the SubDivisional Officer suomotu passed an order on the same day for recounting of votes. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. : 3. The controversy involved in the present petition is settled by the decisions reported in Tarif Giri v. Additional SubDivisional Officer Hapur, District Gaziabad and otters (1986 UPLBEC 183) and Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur and others (1985 UPLBEC 317) (Full Bench). The settled law is that in an Election Petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act the order for recounting of votes cannot be passed unless the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interference and recounting. For this purpose evidence has to be led. The settled law is that in an Election Petition under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act the order for recounting of votes cannot be passed unless the election petitioner has made out a prima facie case for interference and recounting. For this purpose evidence has to be led. Certain principles are to be followed by the court before passing the order for recounting and they are: (1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is scrutinised and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations; (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and must be supported by adequate statements of material facts; (3) The Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a Court; (4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties; (5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish out materials for declaring the election to be void, and (6) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the primafacie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount and not for the purpose of fishing out materials. 4. 4. In the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge (supra) the Full Bench has held: In the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ), the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar question arising under the Representation of the People Act, held that before an authority or court dealing an election petition is not to look into or direct inspection of ballot papers unless following two conditions coexist: (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 (the petition meets the requirement of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act regarding contents of the election Petition), and (ii) The Tribunal is primafacie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. In this connection the Supreme Court went on to observe thus: 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 provision 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. The law laid down in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge (supra) fully applies in the present case. The SubDivisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass such an order of recounting of votes without any material on the record. It was proper for the SubDivisional Officer to have recorded the evidence of the parties first and only then such an order could have been passed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs and the order of the SubDivisional Officer dated 1671988 is quashed. He is directed to decide the Election Petition within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 7. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs and the order of the SubDivisional Officer dated 1671988 is quashed. He is directed to decide the Election Petition within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 7. A copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the parties within one weak on payment of usual charges.